WEBVTT

NOTE Hayek and His Lamentable Contemporaries

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.500
It's pretty well agreed that we're now living in an economic crisis.

2
00:00:03.500 --> 00:00:09.800
It's also pretty well agreed that most economists, especially so-called establishment economists, don't know what to do about it.

3
00:00:09.800 --> 00:00:16.700
This is pretty unusual considering that up until about five years ago, the ruling economic establishment

4
00:00:16.700 --> 00:00:22.700
not only believed but also trumpeted far and wide that they knew exactly what to do about all economic problems.

5
00:00:22.700 --> 00:00:26.500
Everything had been solved. As a matter of fact, I think about five years ago,

6
00:00:26.500 --> 00:00:33.540
The distinguished Keynesian economist Robert Solow of MIT wrote something to the effect

7
00:00:33.540 --> 00:00:38.620
that macroeconomic problems, macroeconomic meaning things like business cycles, inflation,

8
00:00:38.620 --> 00:00:43.500
recession, depression, and so forth, that all macroeconomic problems have now been solved

9
00:00:43.500 --> 00:00:49.100
and everything is, macroeconomic theory has been taken care of. Now usually when somebody

10
00:00:49.100 --> 00:00:53.860
says that, that's the sort of beginning of the deluge. Sure enough, only a few years

11
00:00:53.860 --> 00:00:57.860
Years later, the same economists have virtually thrown up their hands and say,

12
00:00:57.860 --> 00:01:00.860
We don't know what's going on. We really don't know what to do.

13
00:01:00.860 --> 00:01:04.860
This does not mean, of course, that they've resigned their jobs in Washington, by the way.

14
00:01:04.860 --> 00:01:09.860
Which leads me to my favorite story. Anybody who's heard this, I apologize for repeating it.

15
00:01:09.860 --> 00:01:18.860
About, I think, in the recession of 1958, which was the first recession where the phenomena of the inflationary recession first began to appear.

16
00:01:18.860 --> 00:01:23.860
This was the first time when the prices were still rising during the recession.

17
00:01:23.860 --> 00:01:29.860
Here we had an authentic, officially authenticated and certified recession, and yet prices, instead of falling,

18
00:01:29.860 --> 00:01:35.860
which is what prices are supposed to be doing in a recession, instead of falling, prices were still going up.

19
00:01:35.860 --> 00:01:38.860
They weren't going up very much, but they were going up.

20
00:01:38.860 --> 00:01:44.860
Arthur Burns, who at that time had just resigned as head of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Eisenhower administration,

21
00:01:44.860 --> 00:01:50.540
I was giving a lecture up at Fordham, which I happened to attend, giving the usual Keynesian

22
00:01:50.540 --> 00:01:54.420
policies, which I'll go into a little bit later, what to do about recessions.

23
00:01:54.420 --> 00:02:00.460
Basically, when there's a recession, you pump spending into the system, you meaning the government.

24
00:02:00.460 --> 00:02:06.140
One pumps, the government pumps spending into the system, thereby lifting the economy upward,

25
00:02:06.140 --> 00:02:09.540
and when there's an inflation, the government takes money out, or takes spending out of

26
00:02:09.540 --> 00:02:10.540
the system.

27
00:02:10.540 --> 00:02:14.180
You work several variants or changes on this theme, and that's essentially the Keynesian

28
00:02:14.180 --> 00:02:16.180
and the Establishment Program.

29
00:02:16.180 --> 00:02:20.680
And so Burns was going into explaining this policy and during the question period,

30
00:02:20.680 --> 00:02:24.180
I unfortunately, I was a brash young fellow at that time,

31
00:02:24.180 --> 00:02:28.680
I said, well, Professor Burns, what do you do if the policy, what you're supposed to do,

32
00:02:28.680 --> 00:02:31.680
what the government is supposed to be doing is pump in deficits during a recession

33
00:02:31.680 --> 00:02:36.680
and take out spending or have higher taxes or surplus during a boom,

34
00:02:36.680 --> 00:02:40.680
what do you do if the both are happening at the same time as it seems to be happening right now?

35
00:02:40.680 --> 00:02:44.180
What do you do if there's an inflation and a recession at the same time?

36
00:02:44.180 --> 00:02:50.180
Well, he said, his first reply was, well, there's no problem there because the recession will soon be over, and so forth.

37
00:02:50.180 --> 00:02:54.180
And I said, well, okay, and it was soon over in 58.

38
00:02:54.180 --> 00:03:01.180
But I said, what happens, Professor Byrd, if at some future date the same phenomena will recur and intensify?

39
00:03:01.180 --> 00:03:05.680
We'll have a severe recession, a longer and accelerating inflation. What then would you recommend?

40
00:03:05.680 --> 00:03:09.180
And he stopped for a moment and he said, well, in that case, we'd all have to resign.

41
00:03:09.180 --> 00:03:16.780
Well, they haven't resigned. The rest, of course, is history. The phenomenon has arrived and is with us right now, and nobody's resigned.

42
00:03:16.780 --> 00:03:23.180
It's one of Rothbard's laws of political science that nobody ever resigns from government unless your hand is caught directly in the till.

43
00:03:23.180 --> 00:03:29.180
The Nobel Prize to Professor Hayek is very interesting because it comes in this context.

44
00:03:29.180 --> 00:03:35.180
It comes in a context where establishment economics doesn't know what's going on and really admit it.

45
00:03:35.180 --> 00:03:41.700
The unusual part of the Nobel Prizes is that all the other Nobel Prizes which have been awarded by the Swedish Academy

46
00:03:41.700 --> 00:03:47.820
and going to people who are economists who are completely in the opposite camp as Professor Hayek.

47
00:03:47.820 --> 00:03:54.740
In other words, economists who are mathematical forecasters and also left liberals, if you want to use that term,

48
00:03:54.740 --> 00:03:57.180
who believe in government planning of the economy.

49
00:03:57.180 --> 00:04:08.180
For the first time, the Hayek Award goes directly and completely contrary to this tradition of the Nobel Award, which surprised all of us enormously.

50
00:04:08.180 --> 00:04:23.180
Perhaps the clue to why the Nobel Committee did this, presumably they were hedging their bets, was that in the award they hailed Professor Hayek as his pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations.

51
00:04:23.180 --> 00:04:41.180
Well, they didn't say what this pioneering work was. What I'd like to do tonight is to go into this and try to explain why I think not only that it was Professor Hayek's work pioneering, but it was also the only correct analysis of what's a business cycle's past, present and future.

52
00:04:41.180 --> 00:04:47.620
The whole phenomenon of the business cycle began approximately in the mid-18th century.

53
00:04:47.620 --> 00:04:53.540
Before that, there was no real business cycle. Businesses would be going along in a certain

54
00:04:53.540 --> 00:04:56.580
sort of even pace and then something would happen. Usually the government would mess

55
00:04:56.580 --> 00:05:00.940
things up, of course they are accustomed to do. The king would confiscate all of it, would

56
00:05:00.940 --> 00:05:05.740
decide to raise money fast by confiscating all the gold of the merchants. And this of

57
00:05:05.740 --> 00:05:09.780
course would cause a severe depression. It wasn't a business cycle sort of thing. It

58
00:05:09.780 --> 00:05:14.140
There wasn't any kind of mysterious boom bust phenomenon, it was simply that the king suddenly

59
00:05:14.140 --> 00:05:18.020
confiscated everybody's money and depression set in.

60
00:05:18.020 --> 00:05:22.340
So that was the sort of thing that would happen until about the mid-18th century when we began

61
00:05:22.340 --> 00:05:29.620
to have this peculiar phenomenon of boom bust cycles which appear not periodically but recurrently.

62
00:05:29.620 --> 00:05:35.740
In other words, the phenomenon of inflation and prosperity and so forth, rising prices

63
00:05:35.740 --> 00:05:40.660
is usually followed by a bank collapse and depression and unemployment, and then followed

64
00:05:40.660 --> 00:05:43.260
again by a recovery and then a boom and so forth.

65
00:05:43.260 --> 00:05:50.060
And this is kind of a puzzling phenomenon because it didn't fit into the general economic theory.

66
00:05:50.060 --> 00:05:54.220
And so shortly after this phenomenon appeared, economists began to try to explain what was

67
00:05:54.220 --> 00:05:55.220
going on here.

68
00:05:55.220 --> 00:06:00.460
Why was there this recurring phenomenon, not directly, well, clearly related to the king

69
00:06:00.460 --> 00:06:01.660
confiscating somebody's money.

70
00:06:01.660 --> 00:06:03.980
In other words, something else seemed to be going on here.

71
00:06:03.980 --> 00:06:06.980
couldn't clearly pinpoint the cause.

72
00:06:06.980 --> 00:06:10.980
Well, as time went on, two groups of theories began to develop.

73
00:06:10.980 --> 00:06:12.980
Of course, there are a lot of different kinds of theories,

74
00:06:12.980 --> 00:06:15.980
but essentially they could be classified into two groups.

75
00:06:15.980 --> 00:06:19.980
One group, which has been dominant generally, and certainly dominant up to,

76
00:06:19.980 --> 00:06:23.980
well, right now, up until the Austrian school revival.

77
00:06:23.980 --> 00:06:26.980
Generally, the dominant school held that the root cause must be,

78
00:06:26.980 --> 00:06:31.980
since around the middle of the 18th century, at about the time business cycles first developed,

79
00:06:31.980 --> 00:06:38.980
and the Industrial Revolution, Industrialization and the Modern Capitalist Economy

80
00:07:01.980 --> 00:07:31.980
Marx was one of the first economists to propound this theory, and John Maynard Keynes, in his famous work in 1936, not only also had a similar view in establishing Keynesian orthodoxy, but also said very explicitly that before him, before Keynes wrote, that classical or free market economists had no theory of the business cycle, they had no explanation of the business cycle or for unemployment or depression, they hadn't thought about it, they hadn't really given their attention to it, he was the first one to really do it,

81
00:07:31.980 --> 00:07:39.980
and he therefore understood that depression was caused by some virus of underspending in the private market economy

82
00:07:39.980 --> 00:07:42.980
which was supposed to be made up by government spending.

83
00:07:42.980 --> 00:07:47.980
In other words, if the cause of depression, say, is the efficiency of spending,

84
00:07:47.980 --> 00:07:50.980
obviously the government is the Deus ex machina, a god out of a machine,

85
00:07:50.980 --> 00:07:54.980
but the government can magically come out of the system and spend more.

86
00:07:54.980 --> 00:07:58.980
Obviously if you can print money, he didn't quite say that, but that's clearly the implication.

87
00:07:58.980 --> 00:08:13.980
The Keynesian Vision of the Economy was, which has been dominant up until the present, so this is not just an antiquarian kind of exercise,

88
00:08:13.980 --> 00:08:19.980
the picture was essentially this, while a free market economy can do very well when it handles so-called microeconomic problems,

89
00:08:19.980 --> 00:08:26.980
It can clear the market. It can solve the problem of how much wheat to produce or how much brandy or whatever.

90
00:08:26.980 --> 00:08:29.980
And it can set the prices and production in these various areas.

91
00:08:29.980 --> 00:08:32.980
In the microeconomy, the free market works very well.

92
00:08:32.980 --> 00:08:38.980
However, in the macro and so-called macroeconomy, the free market doesn't work.

93
00:08:38.980 --> 00:08:44.980
The theory being the free market can't provide the proper amount of total spending.

94
00:08:44.980 --> 00:08:56.980
And so the Keynesian picture of the economy is essentially one where a free market economy is essentially one where the economy is like an automobile and you're driving down a very narrow sort of tightrope or ledge

95
00:08:56.980 --> 00:09:06.980
with two abysses on either side, one of the abyss of unemployment which occurs if there's too little spending, the other is the abyss of inflation which occurs if there's too much spending

96
00:09:06.980 --> 00:09:15.980
And the task of the government, the government is sort of the pop-up driver of the car, obviously if the economy is a car you have to have somebody driving it.

97
00:09:15.980 --> 00:09:29.980
So the task of big brother government is to be at the steering wheel, keeping, fine-tuning the economy in such a way as to keep the key total spending perfectly precisely attuned to the so-called full employment line,

98
00:09:29.980 --> 00:09:36.980
The economy doesn't fall off on the one hand of the abyss of depression and the other hand of the abyss of flesh.

99
00:09:36.980 --> 00:09:40.980
So the task of government is to keep the economy on this line.

100
00:09:40.980 --> 00:09:45.980
The Keynesians came to the conclusion very early that they had the proper tools of doing this.

101
00:09:45.980 --> 00:09:49.980
They could pump spending in, as I said before, in case there's too little spending.

102
00:09:49.980 --> 00:09:52.980
They can push the steering wheel to the right, so to speak.

103
00:09:52.980 --> 00:09:55.980
They can take spending out if there's enough flesh.

104
00:09:55.980 --> 00:10:05.980
This was essentially what we can call the established Keynesian orthodoxy of what the government is supposed to be doing and what causes recession.

105
00:10:05.980 --> 00:10:18.980
But this has clearly not worked, and it's pretty evident by this time, even the Keynesians, who are desperately flaring around to try to find some other explanation of why they're, why the drawing board, why they have to go back to the old drawing board.

106
00:10:18.980 --> 00:10:27.980
Because obviously what's happening now is that there's accelerated inflation. At the same time, there's a recession, and there's recurring recession, which we're going through right now.

107
00:10:27.980 --> 00:10:31.980
And as Arthur Burns said, we all have to resign, except nobody does it.

108
00:10:31.980 --> 00:10:47.980
Okay, that's one school of thought, one general area of thought, which locates the cause of the business cycle, the cause of depression, the cause of inflation, somewhere within the market economy, somewhere within the industrial capitalist system.

109
00:10:47.980 --> 00:10:56.980
There is another group of economists, another tradition of economics, which has been neglected until very recently, which says something very different.

110
00:10:56.980 --> 00:11:03.980
Actually, this was the view of the Ricardo and the classical economists of the 19th century in rudimentary form.

111
00:11:03.980 --> 00:11:10.980
Essentially, what the second group says is that something else happened in the middle of the 18th century, not just the Industrial Revolution,

112
00:11:10.980 --> 00:11:18.980
Another institution which is directly the cause of the business cycle, and that is the banking system, more precisely the fractional reserve banking system.

113
00:11:18.980 --> 00:11:25.980
And even more precisely than that is the government involvement of the banking system through the central banks.

114
00:11:25.980 --> 00:11:33.980
The first simpler model of this, the so-called monetary view of the business cycle, came about with Ricardo and the classical economists.

115
00:11:33.980 --> 00:11:40.780
Essentially they had a very simple kind of view, but it was pretty good considering it was in the 19th century economics.

116
00:11:40.780 --> 00:11:49.380
Basically what they said was that the government and the banking system, the government promotes bank credit expansion, expansion of the federal fractional reserve banking,

117
00:11:49.380 --> 00:11:59.740
money and credit, the supply of money and credit go up, this raises prices, creates a prosperity, a phony prosperity, a real prosperity with whatever value they took on that.

118
00:11:59.740 --> 00:12:29.740
This causes the inflationary boom part of the cycle, and then what happens is that the gold of banks in the country begin to lose gold to other countries because as domestic prices go up and foreign prices still remain the same, gold grains out to other countries until finally the pressure gets very intense on the banks, finally gold grains out and their bank credit has increased and so the reserve ratio keeps dwindling and finally they've got to stop expanding and contract in order to save themselves

119
00:12:29.740 --> 00:12:42.740
This confaction causes the recession part of the business cycle. During the recession, money supply falls, prices fall, and gold flows back in for the country and recovery.

120
00:12:42.740 --> 00:12:47.740
And then after this happens, the banks are ready to start in again, start expanding again.

121
00:12:47.740 --> 00:12:52.740
This is a fairly simple model of the business cycle, but it's pretty accurate as far as it goes.

122
00:12:52.740 --> 00:13:04.740
It pinpoints, in my view, the basic cause of the business cycle as not embedded deep within the industrial capitalist free market economy, but within the banking system and the government controlled banking system.

123
00:13:04.740 --> 00:13:11.740
Why is the government and the banking system always desirous of increasing the money supply? Well, it's fairly simple.

124
00:13:11.740 --> 00:13:17.740
Any group which seizes control of the money supply, in other words, any group which has the only legalized...

125
00:13:17.740 --> 00:13:26.740
But let me put it this way, the government and its controlled banking system is the only institution in society which has the right to counterfeit, in other words, the right to increase the supply of money.

126
00:13:26.740 --> 00:13:35.740
If any of the rest of us start counterfeiting, printing dollars, not only do we go to jail, we go to jail very, very swiftly and for a very long period of time.

127
00:13:35.740 --> 00:13:47.740
The counterfeiter has always been one of the most reviled criminals on the government books because a private mugger gets off with a slap and a suspended sentence, perhaps, because he's only mugging individual citizens.

128
00:13:47.740 --> 00:13:55.740
But the counterfeiter strikes at the root of the government's monopoly on the creation of money, which is much more important for the government than the mugger.

129
00:13:55.740 --> 00:14:04.740
So one of the first things the government does early in the game is to seize control, in other words, acquire a compulsory monopoly of the right to print money.

130
00:14:04.740 --> 00:14:11.740
And my contention is, if you have the right to print money, you're going to use it, like anything else, because you can print money, you can spend it.

131
00:14:11.740 --> 00:14:17.740
Or you can print money and you can lend it out to favored groups, politically favored groups.

132
00:14:17.740 --> 00:14:21.740
So the natural tendency of government and its controlled banking system is to inflate.

133
00:14:21.740 --> 00:14:26.740
There's no mystery about it. This is what they always want to do anyway.

134
00:14:26.740 --> 00:14:32.740
There are certain checks on the process, such as the fact of losing gold, the gold standard, losing gold abroad,

135
00:14:32.740 --> 00:14:37.740
which runs on the banks before the IRC came in in 1933 to stop that.

136
00:14:37.740 --> 00:14:41.740
But in the natural course of events, there are basic market checks on this phenomenon,

137
00:14:41.740 --> 00:14:45.740
which keep the process at least a little bit in hand.

138
00:14:45.740 --> 00:14:49.740
We've managed to eliminate most of those checks at this point, by the way.

139
00:14:49.740 --> 00:15:02.740
So here we have some of the basic model, which places, I say, the blame for the business cycle in the banking system and the government, I should say, the government controlled banking system, the inflationary process of money creation.

140
00:15:02.740 --> 00:15:18.740
This, however, wasn't really a totally satisfactory theory of the business cycle. It left out a lot of stuff, for one thing. It left out a problem. Why is it, for example, that there's always a greater boom and bust in the capital goods industries, the machine tools and industrial raw materials and construction?

141
00:15:18.740 --> 00:15:23.740
Why is there a much greater business cycle in that area than there is in consumer goods?

142
00:15:23.740 --> 00:15:29.740
Why is there a sudden collapse of business forecasting? Businessmen, after all, are sort of expert forecasters.

143
00:15:29.740 --> 00:15:32.740
They usually know what's going to happen fairly well.

144
00:15:32.740 --> 00:15:38.740
How come they won't suddenly collapse at the crisis point when the recession or depression arrives?

145
00:15:38.740 --> 00:15:45.740
And so these various deficiencies meant there were certain gaps in the theory, which had to be fleshed out.

146
00:15:45.740 --> 00:15:52.140
Well, what happened was that Ludwig von Mises, the founder of the modern Austrian School,

147
00:15:52.140 --> 00:15:56.620
began the so-called Austrian Theory of Business cycle in 1912 when he published his Theory

148
00:15:56.620 --> 00:15:57.620
of Money and Credit.

149
00:15:57.620 --> 00:16:03.260
What he did was he built on the McCarty Foundation and the Classwell Foundation, also added the

150
00:16:03.260 --> 00:16:09.340
insights of the Swedish economist Knut Vigsel on the key difference between the free market

151
00:16:09.340 --> 00:16:13.980
interest rate, the so-called natural interest rate, and the loan rate of banks.

152
00:16:13.980 --> 00:16:18.620
And what integrated this whole thing into a theory which is, far as I'm concerned, is

153
00:16:18.620 --> 00:16:25.020
the only theory which is integrated completely with regular economics, with so-called microeconomics.

154
00:16:25.020 --> 00:16:30.100
Mises simply outlined this very briefly in 1912 and was left to Frederick Hayek in the

155
00:16:30.100 --> 00:16:35.860
late 1920s to spin this whole thing out in two beautiful books, which I still recommend

156
00:16:35.860 --> 00:16:41.300
as the best books on the topic, still in print I believe, Prices and Production and The Monetary

157
00:16:41.300 --> 00:16:43.140
Theory of the Trade Cycle.

158
00:16:43.140 --> 00:16:49.140
The Monetary Theory Trace Cycle introduces this whole subject, sets the thing in perspective, and the prices and production is more technical.

159
00:16:49.140 --> 00:16:52.140
Both of these were written in the late 20s.

160
00:16:52.140 --> 00:16:58.140
What Mises and Hayek did in the late 20s, and the thing which really struck the rest of the economic world of economists,

161
00:16:58.140 --> 00:17:01.140
was that they more or less predicted the Great Depression.

162
00:17:01.140 --> 00:17:07.140
In 1927 or 28, the whole world of establishment economics said there was going to be permanent prosperity.

163
00:17:07.140 --> 00:17:10.140
There ain't going to be no depressions no more, no more.

164
00:17:10.140 --> 00:17:15.140
And everybody says this, we were living in what the Coolidge-Hoover administration is called the New Era.

165
00:17:15.140 --> 00:17:20.140
And the reason was that we had created this wonderful engine called the Federal Reserve System.

166
00:17:20.140 --> 00:17:22.140
The Federal Reserve System was to keep everything in an even keel.

167
00:17:22.140 --> 00:17:25.140
There was sort of like a pre-Keynesian theory.

168
00:17:25.140 --> 00:17:31.140
The idea was if prices fell, the Federal Reserve would pump money in, if prices rose, the Federal Reserve would take money out.

169
00:17:31.140 --> 00:17:33.140
As a result, there couldn't be any depression.

170
00:17:33.140 --> 00:17:45.140
In the meantime, while this euphoria was being engaged in by the established economists, Mises and Hayek in Austria were saying there was going to be a depression because, well, because what?

171
00:17:45.140 --> 00:17:56.140
Well, for one thing, they too, along with the classical economists, said that the cause of the business cycle was not the industry or the market economy or industrialization, but the banking system.

172
00:17:56.140 --> 00:18:12.140
The problem was not so much in the price level, not so much the fact that prices went up and money was pumped in, but that when inflationary credit expansion was pumped into the system, it not only tended to raise prices, it did something even worse than that, in a sense, it tended to distort the production system.

173
00:18:12.140 --> 00:18:21.140
In other words, it tended to cause an over-investment in things like construction and capital goods and industrial materials, and an under-investment in consumer goods.

174
00:18:21.140 --> 00:18:30.140
And that the longer this happened, this part of this was wrapped up in the fact that interest rates were pushed down artificially by the expanded bank credit.

175
00:18:30.140 --> 00:18:37.140
And the longer this process continued, the longer the government kept pushing this, the more severe the recession would have to be.

176
00:18:37.140 --> 00:18:43.140
The idea being this, and this is I think unique in the history of economic thought.

177
00:18:43.140 --> 00:18:50.140
The idea being the recession, instead of being a terrible thing coming from sort of a God-given blight or something,

178
00:18:50.140 --> 00:19:05.140
In other words, something like an earthquake or a plague, which has to be fought, the recession becomes not that, but a necessary medicine, which is the consequence of the real evil, which is the inflationary boom which was created by the government itself.

179
00:19:05.140 --> 00:19:23.140
In other words, as the government and its banking system pumps in more credit to the economy, it not only raises prices but also the storage production, it causes an over-investment in all sorts of unsound investments and unsound machine tool and construction and so forth.

180
00:19:23.140 --> 00:19:32.140
And therefore it becomes more and more necessary to have a recession in order to shift resources back into the healthy free market kind of economic system.

181
00:19:32.140 --> 00:19:36.140
It's necessary to liquidate these unsound investments as fast as possible.

182
00:19:36.140 --> 00:19:40.140
And if the government tries to eliminate the recession by pre-mortem the agony,

183
00:19:40.140 --> 00:19:43.140
in other words by stopping this process in all sorts of ways,

184
00:19:43.140 --> 00:19:49.140
all it will do is pre-mortem the agony and lengthen and make the depression chronic instead of acute.

185
00:19:49.140 --> 00:19:56.140
For example, the last, Benjamin Anderson, the late economist for the Chase National Mag, at the time,

186
00:19:56.140 --> 00:20:02.140
The last free market recession or last free market recovery was 1921.

187
00:20:02.140 --> 00:20:06.140
It was a very severe post-World War I depression.

188
00:20:06.140 --> 00:20:10.140
Prices fell very rapidly. Unemployment went up very sharply.

189
00:20:10.140 --> 00:20:14.140
However, the depression, even though severe, is just the government didn't interfere with it.

190
00:20:14.140 --> 00:20:17.140
Didn't try to help out the unemployed by unemployment relief.

191
00:20:17.140 --> 00:20:21.140
Didn't try to shore up unsound investments through government lending operations.

192
00:20:21.140 --> 00:20:25.140
Didn't try to create deficits to cure.

193
00:20:25.140 --> 00:20:37.140
and so forth. They didn't do anything, and the result of the depression was over very, very rapidly. As a matter of fact, by the time the government figured they should do something about the depression, it was all over.

194
00:20:37.140 --> 00:20:51.140
In 1929, when the Hoover administration came in, Hoover acted very, very quickly, unfortunately, and engaged in all the new deal programs, which we associate with Franklin Roosevelt, which were really begun by Herbert Hoover.

195
00:20:51.140 --> 00:20:58.880
The whole business, government loans, unsound investments, keeping wage rates up, keeping

196
00:20:58.880 --> 00:21:04.340
prices up, deficit spending, cheap credit, no panoply, new deal measures, really begun

197
00:21:04.340 --> 00:21:05.340
by Hoover.

198
00:21:05.340 --> 00:21:10.380
In a recent interview, Rex Tugler, a famous Franklin Roosevelt advisor, admitted that

199
00:21:10.380 --> 00:21:13.380
Hoover started the whole thing, but he couldn't say it at the time, he couldn't admit it,

200
00:21:13.380 --> 00:21:14.380
it was a political fight.

201
00:21:14.380 --> 00:21:35.380
Well, the result of the New Deal program, Hoover raised about New Deal was, and instead of the recession being over in approximately 9 or 12 months, as the 1921 recession was, it was lingered for about 11 or 12 years until World War II got us out of it.

202
00:21:35.380 --> 00:21:45.380
So the Mises-Hayek approach then is a sort of public policy that emerges from the Mises-Hayek position.

203
00:21:45.380 --> 00:21:48.380
It's virtually the direct opposite of the Keynesian policy.

204
00:21:48.380 --> 00:21:53.380
In other words, the Keynesian policy is if there's a recession you pump spending in or you pump money in,

205
00:21:53.380 --> 00:21:55.380
if there's an inflation you take money out.

206
00:21:55.380 --> 00:22:00.380
The Austrian view is if there's an inflation, first place, stop inflating,

207
00:22:00.380 --> 00:22:04.380
which means stop creating new money and credit through the government's controlled banking system.

208
00:22:04.380 --> 00:22:11.380
and the banking system. And if there's a recession, don't do anything about it and let it work itself out as quickly as possible.

209
00:22:11.380 --> 00:22:15.380
Now obviously this is the direct opposite of the Keynesian prescription.

210
00:22:15.380 --> 00:22:23.380
It's also pretty clear as to which policy the government is going to adopt when any kind of a crisis emerges.

211
00:22:23.380 --> 00:22:31.380
You see, for example, every time there's a slight problem with liquidity, the cry goes up among businessmen, among bankers,

212
00:22:31.380 --> 00:22:44.260
The liquidity crunch is precisely the Austrian retribution catching up with the inflationary

213
00:22:44.260 --> 00:22:45.260
boom.

214
00:22:45.260 --> 00:22:49.940
The government always exceeds the short-run pressure to ease the problem, thereby pumping

215
00:22:49.940 --> 00:22:50.940
more inflation.

216
00:22:50.940 --> 00:22:55.300
One of the differences about the 20s was, one of the reasons why most of the economists

217
00:22:55.300 --> 00:22:59.500
in the 1920s did not forecast the depression is because in those days prices did not go

218
00:22:59.500 --> 00:23:00.500
up.

219
00:23:00.500 --> 00:23:07.500
The general price level remained about constant. The official theory was that the price level remains constant. There can't be any problem with inflation.

220
00:23:07.500 --> 00:23:13.500
The Austrian view, however, was that in a normal course of events, prices don't remain constant. They fall.

221
00:23:13.500 --> 00:23:18.500
And we can see this, in other words, if you allow a capitalist economy to proceed unhampered.

222
00:23:18.500 --> 00:23:23.500
Productivity goes up as new inventions, as mass production comes in, etc. Prices will tend to fall.

223
00:23:23.500 --> 00:23:28.500
We see that, for example, in TV sets, which cost about $2,000 in 1948.

224
00:23:58.500 --> 00:24:03.100
System, thereby creating the whole boom-bust cycle even though prices did not go up.

225
00:24:03.100 --> 00:24:06.500
And the Austrians, as I say, foresaw that.

226
00:24:06.500 --> 00:24:12.140
But what happened was, Mises and Hayek had predicted the 29 Depression, so when the 29

227
00:24:12.140 --> 00:24:17.460
Depression came, their prestige went up among economic circles.

228
00:24:17.460 --> 00:24:24.140
Also, fortunately for Anglo-American economics, Hayek at that point left the University of

229
00:24:24.140 --> 00:24:26.860
Vienna and came to London School of Economics.

230
00:24:26.860 --> 00:24:31.860
and he started gathering around him the best minds among younger English economists.

231
00:24:31.860 --> 00:24:38.860
And so from 1931 approximately until 35, 36, most English economists adopted this Austrian position.

232
00:24:38.860 --> 00:24:46.860
Adopted the view that the cause of the business cycle was bankrupt expansion, cleaner distortion of production,

233
00:24:46.860 --> 00:24:51.860
that the government should leave things alone, stop inflating, leave things alone, and so forth.

234
00:24:51.860 --> 00:25:00.860
Sir John Hicks had won the Nobel Prize last year, was an early Hayek student, and Alvin Hanson, and so forth, and so on, a whole group of people who later shifted.

235
00:25:00.860 --> 00:25:09.860
The Austrian theory was adopted precisely because it was the only one that it predicted and also could explain the Great Depression, and it began to be adopted also in the United States.

236
00:25:09.860 --> 00:25:18.860
Just at that point comes the so-called Keynesian Revolution, Lord Keynes wrote his book in 1936, and the whole gang flip-flopped.

237
00:25:18.860 --> 00:25:25.860
What happens is, and this is very often true in the history of thought, by the way, not just in economics, but social sciences generally,

238
00:25:25.860 --> 00:25:30.860
it wasn't that the Keynesians refuted the Austrian theory, the Austrian theory was just forgotten.

239
00:25:30.860 --> 00:25:37.860
Nobody ever refuted it, they didn't talk about it, it's just the fashion changes, something like ladies hemlines, fashion changes,

240
00:25:37.860 --> 00:25:44.860
and they just stopped talking about the Austrian stuff, they deal with a completely different set of items, and that was it.

241
00:25:44.860 --> 00:25:55.860
The Keynesian Revolution was facilitated by the fact that Lord Keynes was extremely popular in English elite circles, so to speak, and English professors all knew each other in those days. He was very tightly knit group.

242
00:25:55.860 --> 00:26:00.860
He was a very charismatic personality and so he swept the whole group with him.

243
00:26:00.860 --> 00:26:09.860
Also, the Keynesian, one of the significant things about the Keynesian theory was, for the first time in the history of economic thought, there have been many differences among economists before that,

244
00:26:09.860 --> 00:26:18.860
This is the first time that economists, sort of official economists, professors and writers, etc., actually advocated inflation and deficit spending.

245
00:26:18.860 --> 00:26:26.860
Before that, economists almost unanimously advocated balanced budgets, sound money, the gold standard, and so forth.

246
00:26:26.860 --> 00:26:31.860
And so, in other words, here we have Keynesians advocating what governments would love to do anyway.

247
00:26:31.860 --> 00:26:39.860
Because before that, economists were sort of like the Peck's bad boy, or sort of the doer pessimist in the group, you know.

248
00:26:39.860 --> 00:26:45.860
The governments would try to advocate all sorts of wild boondoggles and fancy schemes.

249
00:26:45.860 --> 00:26:47.860
The economists would always say, no, it's not going to work.

250
00:26:47.860 --> 00:26:53.860
The economists were sort of the official wet blanket among intellectuals and statesmen and so on.

251
00:26:53.860 --> 00:26:55.860
But here we have Keynesians who were not wet blankets.

252
00:26:55.860 --> 00:27:00.860
They were very exuberant about the idea of government inflation, deficit spending, and so forth.

253
00:27:00.860 --> 00:27:06.100
of Worth, and so their ideas were adopted with great enthusiasm by the official political

254
00:27:06.100 --> 00:27:07.100
establishment.

255
00:27:07.100 --> 00:27:14.540
Lord Keynes said when he was in his book, when he was answering criticisms that in the

256
00:27:14.540 --> 00:27:18.820
long run his theories won't work, and one of his very famous statements was, well, who

257
00:27:18.820 --> 00:27:21.580
cares, because in the long run we're all dead.

258
00:27:21.580 --> 00:27:26.700
Well, the problem is, of course, that right now Keynes is dead and we're still alive.

259
00:27:26.700 --> 00:27:30.700
In other words, we're living in the Keynesian long run and we're suffering from it.

260
00:27:30.700 --> 00:27:37.700
If we're interested in then solving the problems created by the Keynesian long run, which we're now living in,

261
00:27:37.700 --> 00:27:40.700
we have to return, it seems to me, to the so-called Austrian approach.

262
00:27:40.700 --> 00:27:46.700
And what's happening is that as the Keynesian theory is becoming more and more discredited,

263
00:27:46.700 --> 00:27:52.700
younger professors and graduate students are more and more adopting and rediscovering the Austrian approach,

264
00:27:52.700 --> 00:27:57.700
which to those of us who are sort of veteran Austrians is really like a real phenomenon.

265
00:27:59.700 --> 00:28:06.700
At any rate, what happens in the 1920s is a bog settles on American economics, namely institutionalism.

266
00:28:06.700 --> 00:28:10.700
I apologize to Pete Fetke if he could.

267
00:28:10.700 --> 00:28:15.700
Institutional, I consider institutional, frankly, as dumb German historical school types.

268
00:28:15.700 --> 00:28:19.700
German historical school people without any scholarship or background or anything,

269
00:28:19.700 --> 00:28:23.700
A moronic version of the German.

270
00:28:23.700 --> 00:28:26.700
Essentially we're saying there is no economic law, there is no economic theory,

271
00:28:26.700 --> 00:28:29.700
the only institution is we should study institutions.

272
00:28:29.700 --> 00:28:33.700
Dorfman, who was an institutionalist, tried to claim there are certain subtle differences

273
00:28:33.700 --> 00:28:36.700
between them and the German Historical School. I could never really figure them out.

274
00:28:36.700 --> 00:28:38.700
I think there are distinctions without a difference.

275
00:28:38.700 --> 00:28:41.700
So what you have then in the 1920s is almost no theory going on.

276
00:28:41.700 --> 00:28:47.700
Institutionalists like Ely, John R. Cummins, who was Ely's assistant at Wisconsin,

277
00:28:47.700 --> 00:28:52.420
was founder of the Wisconsin Idea and he was an interpreter and assistant and post-millennial

278
00:28:52.420 --> 00:28:57.420
pietist, head of the Spice Chair of the Institute for Christian Sociology, et cetera, et cetera.

279
00:28:57.420 --> 00:29:01.780
He was the only guy actually studying institutions. Most institutions just gas around a lot, attack

280
00:29:01.780 --> 00:29:06.140
everybody else. They don't really do anything. Thomas actually did a lot. He studied legal

281
00:29:06.140 --> 00:29:10.820
property rights and American labor history in which he was an excellent labor historian.

282
00:29:10.820 --> 00:29:16.260
He did something, so I have to honor him for that. Of course, Dorstein Veblen, famous institutionalist

283
00:29:16.260 --> 00:29:18.260
and General Pain in the Neck

284
00:29:46.260 --> 00:29:48.260
The most interesting thing about Bebelin is sort of a Galbraith that couldn't write very well.

285
00:29:48.260 --> 00:29:55.260
Galbraith is really totally taken out of Bebelin, except Galbraith is a good writer and Bebelin wasn't.

286
00:29:55.260 --> 00:29:58.260
Galbraith of course never acknowledges Bebelin either.

287
00:29:58.260 --> 00:30:03.260
Belly aching about conspicuous consumption in the affluent society, all too affluent, and all the rest of it.

288
00:30:03.260 --> 00:30:06.260
I don't think it's really worth discussing more than that.

289
00:30:06.260 --> 00:30:10.260
The only interesting thing about Bebelin is he didn't get along with the left liberals.

290
00:30:10.260 --> 00:30:13.260
Being extreme leftists, he only got along with right wingers.

291
00:30:13.260 --> 00:30:28.260
I've seen that happen in other places. It passed along as a phenomenon. Eugene D. Genovese, a brilliant Marxist historian, probably the only scholarly Marxist historian around, has broken everybody on the left. The only person he talks to are right-wingers.

292
00:30:28.260 --> 00:30:37.260
So in the 1930s, in the United States, there was a vacuum in American economics. There was no theoretical, no theory at all, really. They were just sort of moping around talking about institutions. There was somebody else who talked about institutions.

293
00:30:37.260 --> 00:30:41.180
and then so bingo when Keynes comes in it sweeps the board

294
00:30:41.180 --> 00:30:45.900
the path was open for a Keynesian revolution because there was no real competing theory here

295
00:30:45.900 --> 00:30:47.740
this brings me to the Keynes stuff

296
00:30:47.740 --> 00:30:50.260
Hayek, well you all know this

297
00:30:50.260 --> 00:30:53.420
Hayek was Mises's most famous and best student

298
00:30:53.420 --> 00:30:58.140
got an appointment at Austrian Academia, by the way there's a great article out, just came out in Hope

299
00:30:58.140 --> 00:31:02.580
History of Political Economy, a long article by Eileen Carver, the wife of Axel Landhoff

300
00:31:02.580 --> 00:31:06.140
about Austrian emigres in the United States, Austrian economists

301
00:31:06.140 --> 00:31:10.140
I talked about all these people, Mises and all these people, a great and loving length.

302
00:31:10.140 --> 00:31:12.140
Austrian economics was tightening up.

303
00:31:12.140 --> 00:31:16.140
I mean, academic posts were, and still are in Europe, very scarce.

304
00:31:16.140 --> 00:31:18.140
And so they started emigrating to the United States.

305
00:31:18.140 --> 00:31:22.140
And Hayek emigrated to, got an offer of a post in London, London School of Economics.

306
00:31:22.140 --> 00:31:26.140
Lionel Robbins was a Misesian and brought the knowledge.

307
00:31:26.140 --> 00:31:30.140
He was a professor in London School, a young professor then, and brought Hayek over.

308
00:31:30.140 --> 00:31:34.140
He got a chair, and Hayek then hits the English system like a thunderbolt.

309
00:31:34.140 --> 00:32:04.140
Hayek's lectures, Prices and Production, was originally a series of lectures, a great book by Hayek, originally a lecture of the London School, Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle, was originally in German, and then translated quickly, so Raman started sponsoring the translation of a whole bunch of stuff, several books by Hayek, and Hayek converts all the London School people like that, almost everybody we now think of as campers,

310
00:32:04.140 --> 00:32:16.140
Keynesians were originally Hayekians, money and business cycles in particular, Abba Lerner, John Hicks, Caldor, Nicholas Caldor, all the top English economists were originally young Hayekians.

311
00:32:16.140 --> 00:32:26.140
And Keynes, Keynes of course was a big shot intellectually, all the English intellectuals knew each other. In the United States nobody knows anybody else particularly, it was all very diffuse.

312
00:32:26.140 --> 00:32:32.140
There it's all in London, Oxford and Cambridge, a small restricted area, and Keynes was a glittering big shot for a long time.

313
00:32:32.140 --> 00:32:41.140
First of all, she started out as a big shot mathematician writing a bad book on theory of probability, a book hailed in its time,

314
00:32:41.140 --> 00:32:51.140
and was also a big intellectual and a member of the Bloomsbury set, a feet artistic set of Bloomsbury, a friend of Virginia Woolf and all these people,

315
00:32:51.140 --> 00:32:56.140
and then became an advisor of the Treasury in World War I and fought against the Versailles Treaty.

316
00:32:56.140 --> 00:33:00.140
So he was very well known as one of Marshall's top students at Cambridge.

317
00:33:00.140 --> 00:33:04.140
Marshall being in Cambridge was the heart of the English economic establishment.

318
00:33:04.140 --> 00:33:07.140
Pagou and Keynes were his two top students.

319
00:33:07.140 --> 00:33:11.140
Of course, Keynes had to destroy Pagou in order to establish his dominance,

320
00:33:11.140 --> 00:33:15.140
which he did by the help of Joan Robertson and other intellectual thugs of the time,

321
00:33:15.140 --> 00:33:19.140
went around and upset Pagou and Robertson and his other people,

322
00:33:19.140 --> 00:33:22.140
and disrupting classes and attacking them and so on.

323
00:33:22.140 --> 00:33:24.140
Keynes wrote this treatise on money.

324
00:33:24.140 --> 00:33:26.140
Keynes sort of waffled around it.

325
00:33:26.140 --> 00:33:29.140
I think the best book was The Tract on Monetary Reform,

326
00:33:29.140 --> 00:33:32.140
in which he analyzes, I think, great insight,

327
00:33:32.140 --> 00:33:34.140
he analyzes hyperinflation and runaway inflation

328
00:33:34.140 --> 00:33:37.140
as the people taking back their resources from the government.

329
00:33:37.140 --> 00:33:39.140
In other words, the government is printing money all the time

330
00:33:39.140 --> 00:33:41.140
and grabbing resources from the public.

331
00:33:41.140 --> 00:33:43.140
And hyperinflation is a method by which the public

332
00:33:43.140 --> 00:33:45.140
speeds up prices ahead of the increase in counterfeiting,

333
00:33:45.140 --> 00:33:47.140
so they can at least keep some resources.

334
00:33:47.140 --> 00:33:57.140
Interesting insight. Treatise on Money was supposed to be his big book on money and Hayek destroyed it with one of the great demolition jobs in the London School of Economics.

335
00:33:57.140 --> 00:34:05.140
By the way, Economica was a marvelous publication. It was early in the mid-30s. It was published in the London School and had a lot of Austrian stuff in it, Mabinzi and stuff.

336
00:34:05.140 --> 00:34:13.140
Robin's, by the way, Essay on Nature's Significance through Economic Science, which was the big methodology book in English, until Friedman's evil article.

337
00:34:13.140 --> 00:34:25.140
I disagree with Kirzner on this. Kirzner thinks that Ramaz is really modern positivism and not Mises. I think it's semi-Misesian. It's Mises diluted.

338
00:34:25.140 --> 00:34:35.140
The first edition of Robin's book was even more Misesian. The second edition, which is the one we know about, which is in the library, cuts out reference to Mises and includes stuff about indifference, Kirz, things like that, beginning to waffle.

339
00:34:35.140 --> 00:34:50.900
The Theory of Money and Credit, a long last, 1935, and the first time, first English translation,

340
00:34:50.900 --> 00:34:51.900
gets it translated.

341
00:34:51.900 --> 00:34:54.700
By the way, this is an interesting footnote on Keynes.

342
00:34:54.700 --> 00:34:57.860
Keynes reviewed The Theory of Money and Credit in German when it came out.

343
00:34:57.860 --> 00:35:03.100
Keynes was the editor, top editor of the Economic Journal, which is the big Cambridge publication,

344
00:35:03.100 --> 00:35:06.100
Hayek says, well, he said it's an interesting book, but there's nothing new in it.

345
00:35:06.100 --> 00:35:09.100
If anything you can say about The Theory of Money and Credit, that isn't it.

346
00:35:09.100 --> 00:35:13.100
He then writes in his memoirs later, well, he said he didn't really know German very well.

347
00:35:13.100 --> 00:35:18.100
He knew enough German to read stuff he already knew, but now he couldn't absorb any new ideas in German.

348
00:35:18.100 --> 00:35:22.100
That's okay, but how did he have a goal to review books in German?

349
00:35:22.100 --> 00:35:27.100
Hayek demolished The Treatise on Money in two long, late articles in Economica,

350
00:35:27.100 --> 00:35:31.100
much of which applies to the general theory, by the way, the attack on capital theory and so forth,

351
00:35:31.100 --> 00:35:33.100
Alleged Capital Theory and the rest of it.

352
00:35:33.100 --> 00:35:35.100
Keyes then goes back to the drawing board.

353
00:35:35.100 --> 00:35:37.100
Essentially acknowledges that he's been smashed

354
00:35:37.100 --> 00:35:41.100
and writes his new work, The General Theory.

355
00:35:41.100 --> 00:35:43.100
When Keyes' General Theory came out,

356
00:35:43.100 --> 00:35:46.100
Keyes being a big shot was reviewed by big shot.

357
00:35:46.100 --> 00:35:47.100
Every journal was reviewed.

358
00:35:47.100 --> 00:35:48.100
Go back and read the scholarly reviews.

359
00:35:48.100 --> 00:35:49.100
They're all totally negative.

360
00:35:49.100 --> 00:35:52.100
Pagood attacks, there's Weiner attacks, there's Knight attacks.

361
00:35:52.100 --> 00:35:54.100
They're all big shots, including Alvin Hanson.

362
00:35:54.100 --> 00:35:56.100
The case of Alvin Hanson is interesting.

363
00:35:56.100 --> 00:35:59.100
Alvin Henry Hanson was a free market type.

364
00:35:59.100 --> 00:36:05.100
Professor of the University of Minnesota wrote a semi-Austrian book called Business Cycle Theory about 1933.

365
00:36:05.100 --> 00:36:08.100
Not really Austrian, I didn't really understand it, but it was pretty favorable.

366
00:36:08.100 --> 00:36:13.100
He also wrote a book called Economic Something in an Unbalanced World, or something like that, in 1931,

367
00:36:13.100 --> 00:36:18.100
attacking the idea of public works to cure depression, great free market right-wing work.

368
00:36:18.100 --> 00:36:22.100
General Theory came out, he attacked it, and announced it in reviews.

369
00:36:22.100 --> 00:36:24.100
I don't think there was any favorable review of it.

370
00:36:24.100 --> 00:36:28.100
Two years later, that swept everybody. Everybody was converted to Keynesianism.

371
00:36:28.100 --> 00:36:31.100
including Hanson who became the country's outstanding Keynesian.

372
00:36:31.100 --> 00:36:34.100
So what are the reasons for the sweeping of the board?

373
00:36:34.100 --> 00:36:39.100
I forget now whether it was Samuelson's Foundations when he wrote the introduction.

374
00:36:39.100 --> 00:36:45.100
He said, in a wonderful world it was to be young enough to read Keynes' The General Theory when it came out

375
00:36:45.100 --> 00:36:49.100
and to be under 30, because the mind was open to this great new revelation.

376
00:36:49.100 --> 00:36:51.100
So why was this super successful?

377
00:36:51.100 --> 00:36:57.100
I went to college and graduate school at a time when Keynes' General Theory had just come.

378
00:36:57.100 --> 00:37:03.100
We were reading Keynes' The General Theory. Nobody reads The General Theory now, because we read Keynesian interpretations of it.

379
00:37:03.100 --> 00:37:10.100
This is before the Keynesians came out with the equations, so we actually had to read this stuff in The Real Thing, The General Theory.

380
00:37:10.100 --> 00:37:19.100
Totally incomprehensible work. Keynes was a good writer when he wanted to be, when he was clear-headed, like in the book on reparation, Versailles Treaty, Economic Consequences of Peace.

381
00:37:19.100 --> 00:37:25.100
It was a very clearly written book. When he was a muddled thinker, he became a muddled writer, so nobody could really understand.

382
00:37:25.100 --> 00:37:30.500
Because he contradicted himself on every page. For example, he'd say, the key to my thought

383
00:37:30.500 --> 00:37:34.100
is that saving always equals investment. Always, always, always equals investment. A page later

384
00:37:34.100 --> 00:37:38.420
he said the key to my thought is saving always differs from investment. Kind of muggy. Now

385
00:37:38.420 --> 00:37:41.700
if you're sort of an average rational person, you'd say this is garbage, and pfft, of course

386
00:37:41.700 --> 00:37:46.260
in a wastebasket, which is what the older economists did. So as a result, you have the

387
00:37:46.260 --> 00:37:49.300
younger people saying, ah, we're the only ones who can understand the master. It's sort

388
00:37:49.300 --> 00:37:54.060
of a cult situation. All those over 30 are locked into their own paradigm. Now we can

389
00:37:54.060 --> 00:38:24.060
This is one of the intellectual reasons, plus the fact that Keynes was important in intellectual life in England, they all knew him, but the interesting thing is why did the Hayekians shift over, the Misesians, in other words, every Misesian, every Hayekian in England except Hayek and Lachmann, partially, I think even Lachmann really came in, everybody except Hayek came in, by the end of the 90s, by the early 30s, everybody in London School, all the younger people in England were economists, were Hayekians.

390
00:38:24.060 --> 00:38:33.060
Misesian-Hayekians, by the end of the 30s they were all Keynesians, all shifted over, and all the Misesians shifted over, partially shifted over.

391
00:38:33.060 --> 00:38:44.060
So if you read these people, Machlub, for example, one of Machlub's, low point of Machlub's intellectual career is his book on the multiplier, the foreign trade multiplier, came out in the 40s, straight Keynesian analysis.

392
00:38:44.060 --> 00:38:53.060
But the thing about these people, Machlub and Haberler, and all these people so loud, the Keynesianism, are shifted over, there's always a Misesian strain there, all the good stuff is Misesian, everything else is Keynesian.

393
00:38:53.060 --> 00:38:58.100
They're never quite pure canesies, they always have a slight throwback, holding back. Gerhard

394
00:38:58.100 --> 00:39:02.060
Tintner is a big econometrician. He's always slightly apologetic about it. What's true

395
00:39:02.060 --> 00:39:05.940
is that we have assumptions here which aren't really true, etc., and he's a Mises student.

396
00:39:05.940 --> 00:39:10.940
So the same way with Morgenstern, whose critiques of GNP statistics and all that are fantastic,

397
00:39:10.940 --> 00:39:14.900
within the framework, trailing clouds of Misesian glory, so to speak.

398
00:39:14.900 --> 00:39:20.340
So why do they all shift over? Now, the case of Hanson is, I think, fairly clear, at least

399
00:39:20.340 --> 00:39:33.340
According to Wilfred King, an old duffer I met in the 40s, who was the originator of income statistics, unfortunately, in the United States, national income statistics, also a price stabilizationist, I think he taught, he preferred the Fisher of Young Irving.

400
00:39:33.340 --> 00:39:38.340
So Wilfred King was a free market person, laissez-faire person, except for money and stabilization.

401
00:39:38.340 --> 00:39:44.340
He said, yes, yes, we had a lot of money, he taught, I think, in Minnesota with Hanson. Hanson was a very good young lad when he was in Minnesota.

402
00:39:44.340 --> 00:39:49.340
As soon as he went to Harvard, he changed. That's certainly part of the picture.

403
00:39:49.340 --> 00:40:00.340
According to Schumpeter, he has a very good assiduous critique of Keynes, and in general theory, the reason for the big shift, in addition to the obscurantism and so forth, is the fact that that's what the government wanted.

404
00:40:00.340 --> 00:40:06.340
First of all, governments always want to incur deficits and spend more. That's the essence of government. They're always straining at the leash.

405
00:40:06.340 --> 00:40:10.340
And the only people with their finger in the dike, so to speak, holding us back and attacking, have been economists.

406
00:40:10.340 --> 00:40:14.340
There's always economists who are saying, no, no, you shouldn't intervene, you shouldn't increase the budget, you shouldn't have deficits.

407
00:40:14.340 --> 00:40:19.860
And so, all of a sudden, you have Congress that say, no, no, the great thing is to have

408
00:40:19.860 --> 00:40:20.860
deficits.

409
00:40:20.860 --> 00:40:21.860
The more deficits, the better.

410
00:40:21.860 --> 00:40:22.860
The more spending, the better.

411
00:40:22.860 --> 00:40:23.860
It's good.

412
00:40:23.860 --> 00:40:25.860
And the guys who say it's bad are really reactionary old footage of it, even though they're not

413
00:40:25.860 --> 00:40:26.860
into the new dispensation.

414
00:40:26.860 --> 00:40:30.860
And so, of course, the government loves Keynesians, and the Keynesians love the government.

415
00:40:30.860 --> 00:40:34.380
We have the marriage of intellectuals and government and the state.

416
00:40:34.380 --> 00:40:36.500
Keynesians then take their place in the planning structure.

417
00:40:36.500 --> 00:40:40.100
For example, I don't know if you know this, but there was a world, I remember a world

418
00:40:40.100 --> 00:40:41.460
where there was no council of economic advisors.

419
00:40:41.460 --> 00:40:42.940
It was a magnificent world.

420
00:40:42.940 --> 00:40:50.220
have no planning, no budgetary, no rotten forecasts in the next five years, which are dead wrong,

421
00:40:50.220 --> 00:40:53.100
no positions for economists, and that sort of stuff. It was great.

422
00:40:53.100 --> 00:40:59.900
And then everybody became more or less Keynesian, even off the burns of my professor.

423
00:40:59.900 --> 00:41:05.660
Claimed he wasn't a Keynesian, but of course really was, and so it was all intros, infighting within the Keynesian framework.

424
00:41:05.660 --> 00:41:11.020
By the way, I was around when the Keynesian equations first started coming out, Molayani and all these people.

425
00:41:11.020 --> 00:41:17.740
My own view is that the current revisionist view is that Keynesians distorted Keynes. Keynes is really a great guy, and Keynesians are really the bad guys.

426
00:41:17.740 --> 00:41:21.340
I don't believe it. I think Keynes was a Keynesian, insofar as there was anything at all.

427
00:41:21.340 --> 00:41:28.340
In other words, the equation is the only thing that made sense out of the master, made sense out of these contradictions, and they made a certain sense.

428
00:41:28.340 --> 00:41:31.380
They were all wrong, at least their coherent structure.

429
00:41:31.380 --> 00:41:37.220
Keynes immediately died early enough that he can't be challenged whether he agrees with the Keynesian equation or not.

430
00:41:37.220 --> 00:41:46.220
Hayek said that just before Keynes died, he wrote to Hayek and said the Keynesians are going too far, and I don't really credit that too much.

431
00:41:46.220 --> 00:41:51.220
I don't credit letters like that. It's sort of a pleasant trade rather than anything else.

432
00:41:51.220 --> 00:41:54.220
So as far as I'm concerned, Keynes is a Keynesian that can prove it otherwise.

433
00:41:54.220 --> 00:41:57.220
And as I say, justify deficits, etc.

434
00:41:57.220 --> 00:42:06.220
The best reputation of Keynes is kind of a sad story by Henry Hazlitt, who wrote a magnificent book, which nobody has ever read, as far as I know, called The Failure of the New Economics,

435
00:42:06.220 --> 00:42:15.220
Hansler did this page by page, going through the entire general theory, a mighty effort, and doing Misesian critique, a hardcore Misesian critique, all the way, every step by step.

436
00:42:15.220 --> 00:42:20.220
Nobody paid it, nobody read it, nobody paid attention to it, much less refute it. That was it, sunk without a trace.

437
00:42:20.220 --> 00:42:26.220
I guess for two reasons. One is Hansler did not have a faculty position, did not have a PhD, therefore he was not an economist, quote unquote.

438
00:42:26.220 --> 00:42:32.220
He was ruled out as a paradigm by the establishment. Secondly, of course, he was anti-Keynesian and Misesian, which is bad, also bad.

439
00:42:32.220 --> 00:42:37.220
It's a great book. It's very clearly written, which of course is a black mark against it, too.

440
00:42:37.220 --> 00:42:40.220
It also doesn't deal with the Keynesian, neo-Keynesian equations.

441
00:42:40.220 --> 00:42:42.220
It deals with the actual general theory.

442
00:42:42.220 --> 00:42:45.220
So I guess that's another black mark. I don't see why it has to deal with the equations.

443
00:42:45.220 --> 00:42:46.220
It's got the whole thing there.

444
00:42:46.220 --> 00:42:49.220
They also then follow it up with a collection of criticisms of Keynes,

445
00:42:49.220 --> 00:42:53.220
of negative reviews for critics of the new economics.

446
00:42:53.220 --> 00:42:59.220
So at any rate, not having a scholarly union card and all that, his book was totally ignorant.

447
00:42:59.220 --> 00:43:04.220
Hutt is another great case. Hutt was also a non-Keynesian. Hutt was an Edwin Cannon student in London School.

448
00:43:04.220 --> 00:43:09.220
And it's very close to Austrianism, the Cannon-Hutt position, the London position.

449
00:43:09.220 --> 00:43:12.220
And Robbins was a student of Cannon. It was very easy for him to become an Austrian.

450
00:43:12.220 --> 00:43:16.220
All these guys, they all shifted over. Robbins, Hicks, of course the whole gang.

451
00:43:16.220 --> 00:43:21.220
To an amazing extent, they recanted. I mean, very few people actually publicly recant.

452
00:43:21.220 --> 00:43:25.220
As far as I know, the only people who really did are ex-communists before publicly recant.

453
00:43:25.220 --> 00:43:34.220
and Hicks and Robbins. Robbins wrote an excellent book called The Great Depression, a Misesian analysis of the 1939 depression in 1934,

454
00:43:34.220 --> 00:43:38.220
and later in life he attacked the book as being a bad book, a terrible book, nobody should read it.

455
00:43:38.220 --> 00:43:44.220
This, of course, was a Misesian book after he became a Keynesian and became a lord and a government planner.

456
00:43:44.220 --> 00:43:49.220
Hicks' Theory of Wages was essentially Austrian, first edition.

457
00:43:49.220 --> 00:43:53.220
He later repudiated it as being a terrible book and evil and Austrian and so on and so on.

458
00:43:53.220 --> 00:44:09.220
In later life, Hickson became a sort of semi-Austrian again. He appeared at Austrian conferences, looked benignly upon the situation, wrote a friendly story about Hayek, as Austrianism became recrudescent, reviving.

459
00:44:09.220 --> 00:44:38.220
I think the reason for the shift over, these people knew better. I mean, actually these people, Mises and Hayek, knew about Keynes, knew the fallacies, and couldn't have been swept away in that young ecstasy like Samuelson. The only explanation I can tell is sell out.

460
00:44:38.220 --> 00:44:42.220
The only explanation I've gotten with this, and usually it's a pretty fairly good explanation.

461
00:44:42.220 --> 00:44:49.220
One of my favorite phrases from that is a famous phrase in the Woodward Bernstein book and movie on Watergate.

462
00:44:49.220 --> 00:44:54.220
If you remember when Woodward can't figure out what's going on, he's totally lost, all his leads are gone.

463
00:44:54.220 --> 00:45:00.220
He goes to the Deep Throat, and he says, Deep Throat, I'm lost, I have to stop the investigation, tell me what to do, Deep Throat.

464
00:45:00.220 --> 00:45:06.220
And he says, follow the money. And of course then this revised the thing, and that's it.

465
00:45:06.220 --> 00:45:12.020
So I think, looking at the money factor, or the economic factor, I think it's important to hear stuff under it.

466
00:45:12.020 --> 00:45:23.020
In other words, the guys who left the Misesian-Hayekian camp and became semi-Keynesians or Keynesians got posts at Harvard, Princeton, et cetera, and the others didn't.

467
00:45:23.020 --> 00:45:26.620
I'm not going to go into critique of Keynesianism, I haven't got the time, unless it's not really...

468
00:45:26.620 --> 00:45:32.320
It's a pretty daffy theory, filled with fallacies and riddles of it and so forth and so on.

469
00:45:32.320 --> 00:45:50.320
My favorite critique is the multiplier. I can demonstrate on Keynesian grounds that if you give me $1,000, there will be a huge $2 million multiplier, and the whole national income will go up by about $2 trillion, the magic multiplier.

470
00:45:50.320 --> 00:46:03.320
What we have, as I said, there's been an Austrian revival since about 74, I think the, actually in 73 we had the first Austrian conference ever since old Austria, the first United States Austrian conference with young Austrians in it.

471
00:46:03.320 --> 00:46:10.320
In 74 Hayek got the Nobel Prize and it was an interesting thing, when he got the Nobel Prize all the economists said, who the hell is Hayek?

472
00:46:10.320 --> 00:46:14.320
Who's this guy that got the Nobel Prize, which is the aim of every economist, right, objective.

473
00:46:14.320 --> 00:46:19.320
And who is he? So they had to go back and find out what he was at least, even for sociological purposes.

474
00:46:19.320 --> 00:46:23.320
for Political Purposes, and this created a Hayek boom, which is still on.

475
00:46:23.320 --> 00:46:28.320
One of my pet peeves, I wrote this in an article in Quarterly Journal of Economics many years ago,

476
00:46:28.320 --> 00:46:33.320
is that government functions by statistics.

477
00:46:33.320 --> 00:46:35.320
If you cut the statistics out, government can't function at all.

478
00:46:35.320 --> 00:46:39.320
I mean, they can't even pretend to plan. They won't know what's going on.

479
00:46:39.320 --> 00:46:45.320
In other words, the market provides information to entrepreneurs, businessmen, or whatever, through the price system, etc.

480
00:46:45.320 --> 00:46:52.320
So businessmen don't really need much statistics, but they need the statistics they themselves generate, and knowledge about qualitative knowledge of the market.

481
00:46:52.320 --> 00:47:00.320
The whole overall statistics, all the stuff that's launched from the Department of Commerce, Department of Labor, etc., is all for government information, basically.

482
00:47:00.320 --> 00:47:07.320
Now, the government, the bureaucrats, the politicians, they do anything, they have to have statistics, because they don't have any real-life, real-world knowledge except for statistics.

483
00:47:07.320 --> 00:47:11.320
Therefore, if we cut the statistics off, they're helpless, they can't do anything.

484
00:47:11.320 --> 00:47:16.320
So as a laissez-faire person, I've been advocating for many years, eliminating all appropriations of government statistics.

485
00:47:16.320 --> 00:47:19.320
And statistics in general has been in service of the state.

486
00:47:19.320 --> 00:47:26.320
In other words, the first statisticians in economics were German historical school people who realized they had to use it to plan.

487
00:47:26.320 --> 00:47:28.320
The government had to use it to plan.

488
00:47:28.320 --> 00:47:30.320
And 19th century statisticians, that was their aim.

489
00:47:30.320 --> 00:47:32.320
We have to gather statistics so the government can plan things.

490
00:47:32.320 --> 00:47:36.320
We have to know how much unemployment there is so the government can secure it, et cetera, et cetera.

491
00:47:36.320 --> 00:47:42.160
Richard T. Ely, my old buddy, who you already mentioned, the government was God's major

492
00:47:42.160 --> 00:47:45.560
instrument of redemption, was of course a big empiricist statistician type. I mean, he

493
00:47:45.560 --> 00:47:49.400
himself did not gather statistics. He was in favor of it. He said we need empirical

494
00:47:49.400 --> 00:47:55.520
data to quote mold the forces at work in society to improve existing conditions. Samuel Rubbles,

495
00:47:55.520 --> 00:48:01.120
who was the American delegate to the International Statistical Congress in Berlin in 1863, said

496
00:48:01.120 --> 00:48:05.000
that quote statistics are the very eyes of the statesman, enabling him to survey and

497
00:48:05.000 --> 00:48:09.020
and Scan with clear and comprehensive vision, the whole structure and economy of the body

498
00:48:09.020 --> 00:48:10.020
politic.

499
00:48:10.020 --> 00:48:14.240
It's true, the converse of it, if you strip the government of statistics, they can't do

500
00:48:14.240 --> 00:48:15.240
anything.

501
00:48:15.240 --> 00:48:16.240
They can't even pretend to know anything.

502
00:48:16.240 --> 00:48:17.240
Great.

503
00:48:17.240 --> 00:48:21.440
Carol Wright, who was one of the first commissioners of labor in the United States, who was a big

504
00:48:21.440 --> 00:48:27.440
statistician, was influenced by a student of Ernst Engel, a German historical school member,

505
00:48:27.440 --> 00:48:31.800
the head of the Royal Statistical Bureau of Prussia and the founder of Engel's Law, and

506
00:48:31.800 --> 00:48:34.640
whatever that is, of consumption.

507
00:48:34.640 --> 00:48:39.260
Richard Ealy was a former student of Engel. Henry Carter Adams was also a progressive

508
00:48:39.260 --> 00:48:43.300
economist along with Ealy and established the Statistical Bureau of the Interstate Commerce

509
00:48:43.300 --> 00:48:47.720
Commission to carry on Engel's great work, believing, quote, that every increasing statistical

510
00:48:47.720 --> 00:48:51.960
activity by the government was essential for the sake of controlling naturally monopolistic

511
00:48:51.960 --> 00:48:56.260
industries. And Irving Fisher, whose life is dedicated, even though fairly free market

512
00:48:56.260 --> 00:49:00.360
in most many areas, whose life is dedicated to stabilizing the price level from manipulation

513
00:49:00.360 --> 00:49:04.320
and Money and the Federal Reserve, there was work on the making of index numbers to try

514
00:49:04.320 --> 00:49:08.320
to show there was a scientific index number, a solution to the index number problem, which

515
00:49:08.320 --> 00:49:12.520
of course there isn't. There ain't no scientific index number. There's no such thing as a scientific

516
00:49:12.520 --> 00:49:16.160
index number of the cost of living, for example, because everybody's got a different buying

517
00:49:16.160 --> 00:49:21.120
pattern. In other words, I buy a lot of books. The cost of living index, which pinpoints

518
00:49:21.120 --> 00:49:26.600
the famous, the classic Dayton, Ohio housewife with two kids and the wife of a steel worker,

519
00:49:26.600 --> 00:49:34.600
The book price, which has been skyrocketing as you all know, never gets in the inflation index.

520
00:49:34.600 --> 00:49:38.600
My inflation index is very different from the Dayton, Ohio Housewife index, right?

521
00:49:38.600 --> 00:49:40.600
And that's not, of course, stamped out.

522
00:49:40.600 --> 00:49:43.600
As Fisher said in his book, Making of Index Numbers,

523
00:49:43.600 --> 00:49:48.600
until this difficulty can be met, stabilization can scarcely be expected to become a reality.

524
00:49:48.600 --> 00:49:52.600
You can't stabilize the price level if you don't know what the price level is.

525
00:49:52.600 --> 00:49:54.600
The private of that, boy, we have them.

526
00:49:54.600 --> 00:50:24.600
All of these people, Carroll Wright was a Faustian, a progressive reformer, Henry Carter Adams was the son of a New England pious congregational preacher, a missionary in Iowa, who started out to study for the ministry of his father's alma mater and over the theological seminary, Irving Fisher, okay, we get to Irving Fisher, one of my pet peeves here, the alleged greatest economist of the 20th century, was the son of an Rhode Island congregationalist pious preacher, watch out for sons of preachers, I guess, his parents were both of old Yankee stock, his mother a strict saboteurian,

527
00:50:24.600 --> 00:50:30.000
He was an inveterate reformer of a crusading spirit. He was an unbelievable prohibitionist.

528
00:50:30.000 --> 00:50:34.360
He wrote three books during the 1920s saying the prohibition works, proving by statistics

529
00:50:34.360 --> 00:50:39.520
the prohibition was good. He also believed in the outlawry. You know, get this, he was

530
00:50:39.520 --> 00:50:44.280
particularly enthusiastic about purging the world of such iniquities of civilization as

531
00:50:44.280 --> 00:50:48.600
alcohol, tea, coffee, tobacco, refined sugar, and bleached white flour, all of which he

532
00:50:48.600 --> 00:51:00.600
And of course, he loved Benjamin Strong because he was stabilizing at the price level.

533
00:51:00.600 --> 00:51:06.600
Then we have Wesley Clare Mitchell, institutionalist, founder of the National Bureau of Economic Research and beloved figure,

534
00:51:06.600 --> 00:51:10.600
student of Thorstein Veblen, and who also was dedicating himself.

535
00:51:10.600 --> 00:51:14.600
He wanted a lot of government statistics, such as in World War I, to be able to plan the system.

536
00:51:14.600 --> 00:51:18.600
All these guys, by the way, love World War I. They all put their spots in the collectivist planning system.

537
00:51:18.600 --> 00:51:22.600
As Dorfman, who was a friend and student of Mitchell, put it about Mitchell,

538
00:51:22.600 --> 00:51:27.600
that he was clearly the type of social scientist, paraphrasing something on Mitchell,

539
00:51:27.600 --> 00:51:32.600
saying that clearly the type of social invention most needed today is one that offers definite techniques

540
00:51:32.600 --> 00:51:36.600
to which the social system can be controlled and operated at the optimum advantage of its members, of Mitchell.

541
00:51:36.600 --> 00:51:43.600
And Dorfman says, to this end, Mitchell constantly sought to extend, improve, and refine the gathering and compilation of data.

542
00:51:43.600 --> 00:51:49.600
Mitchell believed that business cycle analysis might indicate the means to the achievement of orderly social control of business activity.

543
00:51:49.600 --> 00:51:52.600
I mean, see, all this time Mitchell was claiming to be a value-free scientist.

544
00:51:52.600 --> 00:51:59.600
Value-free scientists are gathering statistics in order to do what? In order to be able to plan a system. That's allegedly value-free.

545
00:51:59.600 --> 00:52:04.600
Mitchell's wife and collaborator, Lucy Mitchell, in her memoirs, talking about herself and her husband,

546
00:52:04.600 --> 00:52:09.600
said that Mitchell envisions the great contribution the government can make to the understanding of economic and social problems

547
00:52:09.600 --> 00:52:15.120
If the statistical data gathered independently by various federal agencies were systematized and planned,

548
00:52:15.120 --> 00:52:17.520
then the interrelationships among them could be studied.

549
00:52:17.520 --> 00:52:22.000
The idea of developing social statistics not merely as a record but as a basis for planning

550
00:52:22.000 --> 00:52:23.600
emerged early in his own work.

551
00:52:23.600 --> 00:52:26.720
So he joined war collectivism in World War I.

552
00:52:26.720 --> 00:52:30.400
At the end of World War I, an interesting event happened.

553
00:52:30.400 --> 00:52:33.200
Namely, the American economic...

554
00:52:33.200 --> 00:52:35.920
This is December 1918, one month after the armistice.

555
00:52:35.920 --> 00:52:39.920
The American Economic Association and the American Statistical Association have a joint meeting.

556
00:52:39.920 --> 00:52:41.920
I don't think they've ever done that before since.

557
00:52:41.920 --> 00:52:47.920
A joint conclave in Richmond, Virginia, fairly close to Washington, where they had all been percolating during the war.

558
00:52:47.920 --> 00:52:53.920
And they have a joint meeting with presidential speeches by Fisher to the American Economic Association

559
00:52:53.920 --> 00:52:55.920
and Mitchell to the American Statistical Association.

560
00:52:55.920 --> 00:52:59.920
And they were very optimistic. Boy, they loved the war, and they loved the post-war world,

561
00:52:59.920 --> 00:53:02.920
which they figured would be an extension of the war, which in a sense it was.

562
00:53:02.920 --> 00:53:06.640
Because Fischer looks forward to an economic rural reconstruction that would provide glorious

563
00:53:06.640 --> 00:53:09.920
opportunities for economists to satisfy their constructive impulses.

564
00:53:09.920 --> 00:53:13.440
That means plan the world, right?

565
00:53:13.440 --> 00:53:17.080
A class struggle, Fischer noted, would surely be continuing over distribution of the nation's

566
00:53:17.080 --> 00:53:18.080
wealth.

567
00:53:18.080 --> 00:53:21.200
But by devising a mechanism of what he called readjustment, the nation's economists could

568
00:53:21.200 --> 00:53:25.960
occupy an enviable role as the independent and impartial arbiters of a class struggle,

569
00:53:25.960 --> 00:53:29.080
these disinterested social scientists making the crucial decisions for the public good.

570
00:53:29.080 --> 00:53:35.080
In other words, this is the role of the intellectuals, and Fischer and Mitchell saw themselves, and all these other guys did too.

571
00:53:35.080 --> 00:53:42.080
Everybody else is involved, they're all bound by their own class interests, they're all selfish and narrow and so forth and so on, businessmen, unions, et cetera, et cetera.

572
00:53:42.080 --> 00:53:56.080
We the intellectuals, the planners, levitate above the class struggle, where we believe only in the truth, and therefore we are the ones who are divinely appointed, or whatever, to plan everything for everybody else, to decide, make all of these decisions based on the national interest, on the common good.

573
00:53:56.080 --> 00:53:59.000
In those days they all said that openly, nowadays it's much more,

574
00:53:59.000 --> 00:54:03.640
this is before the science of public relations had been advanced to a high art.

575
00:54:03.640 --> 00:54:06.520
Everybody was pretty out front with their position.

576
00:54:06.520 --> 00:54:08.960
That's why it's interesting to study this whole period.

577
00:54:08.960 --> 00:54:13.480
The engineers would say, we're engineers, the society is complex and thus therefore we should plan the whole world.

578
00:54:13.480 --> 00:54:18.800
Engineers and economists should plan, of course, a little squabble is there, but we should be the top planners.

579
00:54:18.800 --> 00:54:22.160
Most interesting, guys, Charles Steinmetz, a great inventor,

580
00:54:22.160 --> 00:54:26.560
So, General Electric's main inventor, General Electric being a Morgan firm, by the way.

581
00:54:26.560 --> 00:54:30.260
Steinmetz called himself a socialist. He wanted world socialism.

582
00:54:30.260 --> 00:54:36.360
And his view was that the world should be planned and run by the corporations, obviously mostly General Electric,

583
00:54:36.360 --> 00:54:43.160
and that the top inspiration and guide for the world corporation should be the great world inventor, obviously, namely himself.

584
00:54:43.160 --> 00:54:48.160
In other words, his view was of a General Electric world with him running it.

585
00:54:48.160 --> 00:54:52.760
This is the idea of socialism, and I guess it was socialism in a different form.

586
00:54:52.760 --> 00:54:58.160
And Mitchell proclaimed that the war led to the use of statistics as the president of the American Statistical Association.

587
00:54:58.160 --> 00:55:01.660
Not only is it a record of what happened, but it also is a vital factor in planning what should be done,

588
00:55:01.660 --> 00:55:03.460
same thing as Lucy Mitchell said.

589
00:55:03.460 --> 00:55:08.360
He also said that war had shown that when the community desires to attain a great goal,

590
00:55:08.360 --> 00:55:11.660
within a short period of far-reaching social changes can be achieved.

591
00:55:11.660 --> 00:55:14.860
The need for scientific planning of social change yet has never been greater.

592
00:55:14.860 --> 00:55:18.620
The chance of making those changes in an intelligent fashion has never been so good.

593
00:55:18.620 --> 00:55:22.340
The peace, he said, will bring new problems, but it seems impossible that the various countries

594
00:55:22.340 --> 00:55:27.260
will attempt to solve them without using the same sort of centralized directing now employed

595
00:55:27.260 --> 00:55:30.980
to kill their enemies abroad for the new purpose of reconstructing their own life at home.

596
00:55:30.980 --> 00:55:34.980
This is a constant theme from then on, for the rest of the century, the New Deal period,

597
00:55:34.980 --> 00:55:35.980
and World War II.

598
00:55:35.980 --> 00:55:39.380
We did such a wonderful job in World War I planning everything, running everything,

599
00:55:39.380 --> 00:55:40.380
and cartilaging everything.

600
00:55:40.380 --> 00:55:42.420
Why can't we do that for peace as well as war?

601
00:55:42.420 --> 00:55:47.420
Why can't we use these great means of collectivism for peaceful purposes?

602
00:55:47.420 --> 00:55:53.420
Then he says, in contrast to the quantitative physical sciences, he tells the statisticians, said Mitchell,

603
00:55:53.420 --> 00:55:58.420
that the social sciences are still immature, speculative, and filled with controversy and class struggle.

604
00:55:58.420 --> 00:56:04.420
But quantitative knowledge, in other words statistics, could replace such struggle and conflict by commonly accepted precise knowledge,

605
00:56:04.420 --> 00:56:09.420
objective knowledge, amenable to mathematical formulation, and capable of forecasting group phenomena.

606
00:56:09.420 --> 00:56:23.420
A statistician, Mitchell O'Pine, has quoted either right or wrong and it's easy to demonstrate which, as a result of precise knowledge of facts Mitchell envisioned, we can achieve, quote, intelligent experimenting and detailed planning, rather than agitation and class struggle, unquote.

607
00:56:23.420 --> 00:56:37.420
And then he says, to achieve these vital goals, economists and statisticians would provide, of course, the crucial element, for we would have to be, quote, relying more and more on trained people to plan changes for us to follow them up, to suggest alterations, unquote, namely for himself and his buddies.

608
00:56:37.420 --> 00:56:52.420
What you have is a naked grab for power. By the way, the Marxists called Mannheim, German Marxists, was presented with a problem. If everybody is determined by their class interests, what about intellectuals? Marx was obviously bourgeois-type and so forth. Where do they fit in?

609
00:56:52.420 --> 00:57:03.420
His answer was that intellectuals are free float. They levitate above the class struggle. So everybody else is determined that we're free. This is, by the way, the typical determinist argument.

610
00:57:03.420 --> 00:57:08.420
All you guys are going to tell me that I've somehow broken through this and I have free will.

611
00:57:08.420 --> 00:57:14.420
There's some good material on all of this. There's two left-wing books, one by Guy Alcon.

612
00:57:14.420 --> 00:57:18.420
It puts it in university press. I think it's called The Invisible Hand of Planning.

613
00:57:18.420 --> 00:57:22.420
It's about the 1920s and all these social scientists have been grabbed for power.

614
00:57:22.420 --> 00:57:24.420
And he quotes Mitchell and Fisher and so forth.

615
00:57:24.420 --> 00:57:29.420
Of course, what he's saying, he's attacking the centrists for selling out Marxism and Leninism or whatever.

616
00:57:29.420 --> 00:57:33.420
It really doesn't matter what position the author is as long as he gets the right stuff.

617
00:57:33.420 --> 00:57:37.420
James Gilbert has a book called Designing the Industrial State, came out about 20 years ago,

618
00:57:37.420 --> 00:57:41.420
about what he called Collectivist Intellectuals of the Progressive Era and World War I.

619
00:57:41.420 --> 00:57:44.420
He's the one who talks about Steinmetz and General Electric Socialism.

620
00:57:44.420 --> 00:57:47.420
David Noble has a book, America by Design, which is a paperback,

621
00:57:47.420 --> 00:57:52.420
about scientists and the nationalization of science in World War I, how the scientists all grab for power and industry.

622
00:57:52.420 --> 00:57:56.420
He said, boy, World War I is great because we have government direction of science.

623
00:57:56.420 --> 00:57:59.420
Channel of science and research in different areas

624
00:57:59.420 --> 00:58:02.420
which of course requires more funds than you get outside it

625
00:58:02.420 --> 00:58:04.420
Designing the industrial state

626
00:58:04.420 --> 00:58:07.420
There's a lot of good stuff on this which is neglected by mainstream historians

627
00:58:07.420 --> 00:58:10.420
There's a lot of stuff to be done, a lot of research

628
00:58:10.420 --> 00:58:13.420
This is really sort of tapping the surface of it

629
00:58:13.420 --> 00:58:21.420
I think Manning wanted me to mention some overall references to the history of economic thought

630
00:58:21.420 --> 00:58:24.420
There's no really good book on the history of economic thought on an extent

631
00:58:24.420 --> 00:58:44.420
The most inclusive book is by Henry W. Spiegel, called The Growth of Economic Thought, the title is all very similar, it's available in paperback and it's huge, like 900 pages, and it's got everything in it, because he's wrong about almost everything, but at least he's got the facts.

632
00:58:44.420 --> 00:58:50.420
Development of Economic Thought or Growth of Economic Thought, something like that, it's published by Prentice Horace, it's widely available.

633
00:58:50.420 --> 00:58:53.420
He's got a very good annotated bibliography, about 150 pages.

634
00:58:53.420 --> 00:58:56.420
It's very comprehensive, it's the best part of the book.

635
00:58:56.420 --> 00:58:59.420
He's got all these people in there, he's got all the groups.

636
00:58:59.420 --> 00:59:02.420
The really best book book is Alexander Gray, but it's very short.

637
00:59:02.420 --> 00:59:05.420
It came out in 1931. It's called the Development of Economics.

638
00:59:05.420 --> 00:59:07.420
It's the same, similar type.

639
00:59:07.420 --> 00:59:09.420
And what he does, he only covers a few groups.

640
00:59:09.420 --> 00:59:12.420
He covers Smith, Ricardo, Marx, stuff like that.

641
00:59:12.420 --> 00:59:13.420
He winds up with the Austrians, interesting.

642
00:59:13.420 --> 00:59:15.420
If you know, he wrote it in 1931, he ignores everybody.

643
00:59:15.420 --> 00:59:18.420
He ignores Marshall and all the other stuff, goes right to the heart.

644
00:59:18.420 --> 00:59:24.420
He's also a great writer, one of the great writers in economic thought, witty, sardonic, and all the rest of the perceptive.

645
00:59:24.420 --> 00:59:27.420
Dimash has people with two sentences, things like that.

646
00:59:27.420 --> 00:59:31.420
He also wrote a book called The Socialist Tradition on Socialism, great on that.

647
00:59:31.420 --> 00:59:38.420
He has one quip about one of these crazy socialist books, one of these ten volume books or something like that, impossibly written, he says.

648
00:59:38.420 --> 00:59:44.420
The sort of book he said you give is one of the six books that Hitler's gonna take to the desert island.

649
00:59:44.420 --> 01:00:11.420
The Schumpeter Book is a great book, but it's very obscure, and it's also eccentric, since the Schumpeter is great on some things and bad on other stuff, and you can't predict which is going to be at any moment.

650
01:00:11.420 --> 01:00:14.420
Schumpeter was a very interesting economist. I didn't have the time to go into his doctrine.

651
01:00:14.420 --> 01:00:18.420
It's the only business cycle theory worth talking about, aside from Mises-Hayek, I think.

652
01:00:18.420 --> 01:00:20.420
And I think it's wrong, but it's very interesting.

653
01:00:20.420 --> 01:00:22.420
It's derived from the Valrazian. In fact, he was a Valrazian.

654
01:00:22.420 --> 01:00:25.420
Unfortunately, he was a Boehm-Bawerkian and shifted to Walras.

655
01:00:25.420 --> 01:00:29.420
Although he was probably the best tribute to another economist in the world,

656
01:00:29.420 --> 01:00:33.420
ever written by Schumpeter's obituary, memorial article to Boehm-Bawerk.

657
01:00:33.420 --> 01:00:37.420
He was magnificent, part of the ten great economists, I think.

658
01:00:37.420 --> 01:00:40.420
So I'd say that I think it's a very interesting endeavor, an interesting writer,

659
01:00:40.420 --> 01:00:50.420
The original business cycle theory was so obviously wrong, they had to create new epicycles to run your work on business cycles.

660
01:00:50.420 --> 01:00:55.420
He said there were several business cycles all going on at once and then accumulating.

661
01:00:55.420 --> 01:01:03.420
Unfortunately, it was impossible for bringing the Kondratchev wave into American thought, of which it has still not yet been purged.

662
01:01:03.420 --> 01:01:13.420
He's an interesting writer. He didn't finish this book. He's unfair to some people. I can't really recommend it as a key book, as an overview.

663
01:01:13.420 --> 01:01:21.420
There's not too much else. Scott has a pretty good book. It's very old. There are certain specific things about specific writers, of course, but as an overall situation, that's about it.

664
01:01:21.420 --> 01:01:29.420
Unfortunately, Eklund and Abert's textbook is extremely hoigish. In other words, the sort of thing where everybody is great. Austrians are great. Keynesians are great.

665
01:01:29.420 --> 01:01:34.060
They're all a contributor to the world outlook, you know, so for an Austrian it's kind of

666
01:01:34.060 --> 01:01:39.060
lovable, because here I'm cited and I come in on a bear favorably, but everybody else

667
01:01:39.060 --> 01:01:43.060
is cited favorably too.

668
01:01:43.060 --> 01:01:47.180
The thing is I think that since Austrian economics is true, there's a certain desire for truth

669
01:01:47.180 --> 01:01:50.180
on the part of people, the truth value of people.

670
01:01:50.180 --> 01:01:53.980
For scholars it's supposed to be even more the truth, value of truth, doesn't always

671
01:01:53.980 --> 01:01:55.580
work, but in some cases it does.

672
01:01:55.580 --> 01:02:01.180
You see, you have this shining truth coming up as being combated by other influence.

673
01:02:01.180 --> 01:02:05.500
I think the truth, the shining truth, also what then begins to happen is,

674
01:02:05.500 --> 01:02:07.900
eventually faulty theories begin to collapse.

675
01:02:07.900 --> 01:02:12.140
So, what happens is that for various reasons, theories begin to collapse.

676
01:02:12.140 --> 01:02:15.340
Take Keynesianism, for example, which was dominant for many years.

677
01:02:15.340 --> 01:02:17.500
And the government loved it, and they loved it, and everything was great.

678
01:02:17.500 --> 01:02:20.860
Keynesianism began to decline on a theoretical level when the equations were worked out.

679
01:02:20.860 --> 01:02:31.860
When Modigliani's equation was worked out in 1948, they found that the whole thing, the rest of the assumption of wage rates being rigid downward, otherwise nothing works.

680
01:02:31.860 --> 01:02:37.860
But it's not supposed to be that. It's supposed to be all blamed on capitalism. Now we find out the rigid wage rates downward have to be blamed either government or unions.

681
01:02:37.860 --> 01:02:41.860
So the whole political focus begins to shift.

682
01:02:41.860 --> 01:02:47.860
Other things begin to pop up. The magic multiplier gets reduced to about one, by the Keynesian statisticians.

683
01:02:47.860 --> 01:02:53.860
The Magic evaporates, and gradually, on a theoretical level, Keynesian begins to lose out.

684
01:02:53.860 --> 01:02:57.460
Not replaced by anything particularly good, but at least the Keynesian paradigm is losing out.

685
01:02:57.460 --> 01:03:01.860
And then, when the Keynesian political predictions flop, okay, in other words,

686
01:03:01.860 --> 01:03:06.860
and the Keynesian rests basically on the idea that you have, either you have a recession or you have an inflation.

687
01:03:06.860 --> 01:03:10.460
In a recession, you pump money in, you pump spending in, whatever proportion you're going to do it.

688
01:03:10.460 --> 01:03:13.560
When you have an inflation, you take money out, or you take spending out.

689
01:03:13.560 --> 01:03:16.660
What do you do, however, when you have inflation and recession at the same time?

690
01:03:16.660 --> 01:03:46.660
As Rand would say, blank out, there's no answer, and this of course began to appear after World War II, especially in 1973, recession, we have a galloping inflation along with the recession, then they had to bug out, and they had it, almost Keynesianism as an intellectual force stopped, doesn't mean the Keynesians stopped, or as the Marxists would say, the ruling class in this case had lost their will to rule, they didn't know what the hell to do, you want to fight, you deflate, what do you do, you know, and so they sort of hung in there trying everything, putting your foot ultimately on the accelerator, on the brake, trying to hope the

691
01:03:46.660 --> 01:03:47.660
Something works.

692
01:03:47.660 --> 01:03:50.160
And basically, that's what the Keynesians have been in ever since.

693
01:03:50.160 --> 01:03:51.160
And that's why the Friedmanites won out.

694
01:03:51.160 --> 01:03:54.060
The Friedmanites not won out because of high theory, they won out because Keynesianism

695
01:03:54.060 --> 01:03:56.160
was dead, basically.

696
01:03:56.160 --> 01:03:59.080
And so people said, hey, maybe the money supply is important, maybe these jerks out there

697
01:03:59.080 --> 01:04:01.440
in Chicago are right.

698
01:04:01.440 --> 01:04:02.440
Friedmanism was tried.

699
01:04:02.440 --> 01:04:05.660
So that's, it was a reality check on filthy theory.

700
01:04:05.660 --> 01:04:09.080
Eventually it begins to come a clapper, both on a theoretical ground and on a practical

701
01:04:09.080 --> 01:04:10.080
policy ground.

702
01:04:10.080 --> 01:04:11.080
Then it begins to collapse.

703
01:04:11.080 --> 01:04:13.680
So there's still Keynesians around it, but they really have nothing to say, particularly.

704
01:04:13.680 --> 01:04:15.680
So, you know, spinning wheels.

705
01:04:15.680 --> 01:04:19.680
And what's interesting enough, I'll have about the monetarists politically, and the Reagan administration.

706
01:04:19.680 --> 01:04:22.680
When the Reagan administration first came in, there were four contending economic groups.

707
01:04:22.680 --> 01:04:26.680
There were the old-fashioned conservatives, of which libertarians were sort of like extreme variant.

708
01:04:26.680 --> 01:04:31.680
Of course, lost out within a year, all kicked out or left, like Martin Anderson, people like that.

709
01:04:31.680 --> 01:04:38.680
They were out. Those who were in favor of a low budget, big budget cuts, big tax cuts, not inflating, they were out very fast.

710
01:04:38.680 --> 01:04:43.680
Then, so you have the monetarists as a supply side, and the white wing Keynesians, contending for power.

711
01:04:43.680 --> 01:04:50.680
The monetarists were big at the beginning, like Sprinkel becomes shooting his mouth off, the Secretary of the Treasury, they were in charge of the money supply.

712
01:04:50.680 --> 01:04:59.680
The Reagan administration, what they did was, they put the Keynesians in charge of the budget, because they were interested in the budget, they put the monetarists in charge of the money supply, so each one gets his own turf.

713
01:04:59.680 --> 01:05:06.680
So the monetarists were running the Fed for a couple of years, even though Friedman kept saying it's not really monetarist, it's a lot of baloney.

714
01:05:06.680 --> 01:05:36.680
2% off for one 10th of an inch. It really was a monetarist policy for several years. Total flopperoo in monetarist own terms. Since Friedman says that science is prediction, the whole point of science is prediction. They kept making predictions, they kept flopping. Outrageous flops. So if you live by the prediction sword, you're going to die by the prediction sword. And when the prediction comes to a clapper, you've had it. The monetarists were discredited. A whole bunch of folded predictions, including a prediction that you could tamper inflation slowly, turn down inflation without having a recession. Which of course, any law stream could have told them it was impossible.

715
01:05:36.680 --> 01:05:43.680
And that was it. These few predictions, as a result, have politically discredited, not so much in the economics profession, but in politics.

716
01:05:43.680 --> 01:05:47.680
As a result, Spickler has been relegated to the Council of Economic Advisers, which is now Siberia.

717
01:05:47.680 --> 01:05:50.680
No influence, no power, none. He's kept his mouth shut.

718
01:05:50.680 --> 01:05:54.680
Now what's happened is the Supply Siders are really Keynesians anyway, become Keynesians.

719
01:05:54.680 --> 01:06:00.680
They're sort of a lovely stoopot coalition of Supply Sider Keynesians and Conservative Keynesians.

720
01:06:00.680 --> 01:06:05.680
By the way, another thing, Supply Siders are people who now take up the torch of Abba Lerner, saying there's no problem with public debt.

721
01:06:05.680 --> 01:06:16.680
by the way, on supply-side, I would recommend everybody read, to understand supply-side doctrine,

722
01:06:16.680 --> 01:06:23.680
Jude Wienyski's famous book, The Way the World Works, which came out just before the Reagan election, in the 1980s, 79s.

723
01:06:23.680 --> 01:06:27.680
I'm thinking about the Wienyski book, which was the best seller, but I can't find anybody who's ever read it.

724
01:06:27.680 --> 01:06:31.680
Wienyski's book is very interesting, it's fascinating, because he has a whole philosophy of history at work.

725
01:06:31.680 --> 01:06:35.720
The philosophy of history is basically this. He's what we can call very kindly a right-wing Hegelian.

726
01:06:35.720 --> 01:06:38.960
He says, history is the working out of the will of the masses.

727
01:06:38.960 --> 01:06:43.640
The will of the masses is correct. It's always correct. The masses know the truth.

728
01:06:43.640 --> 01:06:47.320
So the function of the intellectual and the politician is not to enlighten the masses,

729
01:06:47.320 --> 01:06:49.800
because the masses know everything anyway. The masses are always right.

730
01:06:49.800 --> 01:06:53.400
It's to embody the correct will of the masses into institutions, into history.

731
01:06:53.400 --> 01:06:59.600
History is a providential, ambivalent, and upward march by which the masses' correct will is embodied in history.

732
01:06:59.600 --> 01:07:10.600
So he has got the two ends in life for Wienyski, the two goals of history, one, world government, and two, world pure democracy because democracy, the more democratic the better because the masses can express their will faster.

733
01:07:10.600 --> 01:07:21.600
I swear it's in there. As a matter of fact, he's the only person who's written in the last 50 years who loves World War I. Usually, you know, the famous story of the right-wingers love the Cold War and liberals love World War II. He loves World War I.

734
01:07:21.600 --> 01:07:28.600
Why World War I? The most destructive war, the pointless war, because it got rid of the kings. He considers the kings absolute evil because they're not democratic.

735
01:07:28.600 --> 01:07:35.600
He says that Hitler and Stalin, despite their various defects, were better than the kings or they were at least democratic. They came in and were, I swear it's in there!

736
01:07:35.600 --> 01:07:38.600
But I had to review the book for somebody, I had to read the damn thing.

737
01:07:38.600 --> 01:07:43.600
I'd like a sort of scholarly contribution, at least.

738
01:07:43.600 --> 01:07:45.600
Thank you very much.