WEBVTT

NOTE The Pre-Austrians

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:08.000
I guess modern economics is a scientific doctrine that begins with Cantillon, Richard Cantillon,

2
00:00:08.000 --> 00:00:10.000
who is a very interesting character, too.

3
00:00:10.000 --> 00:00:15.000
And I really love Cantillon, who's hardly talked about, but to put it in a plug for myself,

4
00:00:15.000 --> 00:00:20.000
the general libertarian study is the current issue, now out as an old Cantillon issue.

5
00:00:20.000 --> 00:00:27.000
Most stuff has ever been written on Cantillon. It came out of a conference on Cantillon several years ago.

6
00:00:27.000 --> 00:00:34.000
Catalan has essentially the praxeological methodology, he's got the methodology of abstract reasoning.

7
00:00:34.000 --> 00:00:40.000
He starts off with a rule of one landlord, in other words, one landlord owns the whole country.

8
00:00:40.000 --> 00:00:45.000
Not so far off, because the French situation was you have landlords and you have farmers,

9
00:00:45.000 --> 00:00:48.000
landlords, absentee landlords, who have gotten the land through conquest,

10
00:00:48.000 --> 00:00:52.000
and they would lease the land to farmers, and then you had other people.

11
00:00:52.000 --> 00:00:55.000
So you start off with one land, what happens with him, and they bring in more people,

12
00:00:55.000 --> 00:01:02.000
The Theory of Money was magnificent. It had the whole Hume theory except for the process analysis, and it was not equilibrium, in other words, it was equilibrium, but it was the process-political equilibrium.

13
00:01:25.000 --> 00:01:33.000
So you have, in British class economics course, you have different equilibrium states. You have this state and that state. You leap somehow magically from one to the other.

14
00:01:33.000 --> 00:01:38.000
I talk only about the equilibrium state. With Catalan, you talk about the process toe of the new equilibrium.

15
00:01:38.000 --> 00:01:47.000
For example, when Catalan talks about what happens when the money supply increases in a country, it's very Misesian, so to speak, pre-Misesian.

16
00:01:47.000 --> 00:02:17.000
The first people get it, they get the new money, they spend more, prices go up as they spend it, and they're good as they buy, then it's trickling to other people, you have sort of a rippling out effect, and each group gets it until finally you have, say, if you double the money supply, finally you wind up with prices more or less doubled, but not completely because you have a different equilibrium now, you have different wealth effects, etc. And it's a very sophisticated, excellent analysis of internationally so-called Hume's species flow analysis, except Camelot is much better than Hume. Hume was writing about the same time.

17
00:02:17.000 --> 00:02:22.320
A little bit later. Actually, no, this is, say, 1730s, and Hume wrote in 1750s. Hume

18
00:02:22.320 --> 00:02:26.720
might probably have read it, and all these guys knew each other. The British knew the

19
00:02:26.720 --> 00:02:31.520
French stuff. You can't really have a pre-Austrian analysis, no question about it. It was a process

20
00:02:31.520 --> 00:02:36.760
thing with individuals starting with the micro-individuals, they get new money, they spend it, and so

21
00:02:36.760 --> 00:02:41.640
you wind up with a doubling of prices, but not automatic doubling, you have a difference

22
00:02:41.640 --> 00:02:50.800
and Prices. On the other hand, Hume, a Scotsman, part of the British tradition, was a brilliant

23
00:02:50.800 --> 00:02:53.320
writer. I have to concede with Hume that he was one of the few people in the history of

24
00:02:53.320 --> 00:02:58.800
thought with a great writer and a little confused thinker. Usually, good writing and clarity

25
00:02:58.800 --> 00:03:03.880
of thought come together. Confusion and bad writing come together. In the case of Hume,

26
00:03:03.880 --> 00:03:10.000
his writing was better than his theory, so to speak. Anyway, with Hume, you have a pure

27
00:03:10.000 --> 00:03:13.800
Pre-Freemanite, pre-monitorist analysis, in other words, all equilibrium states.

28
00:03:13.800 --> 00:03:17.100
As a matter of fact, there's a famous example which Mises uses.

29
00:03:17.100 --> 00:03:19.800
It's a good first approximation of what happens with money.

30
00:03:19.800 --> 00:03:23.300
What I call the Angel Gabriel model, in other words, you're sleeping overnight.

31
00:03:23.300 --> 00:03:25.400
Overnight, the Angel Gabriel descends to man.

32
00:03:25.400 --> 00:03:28.600
They hear the mankind is always belly-aching, we haven't got enough money.

33
00:03:28.600 --> 00:03:32.400
The Angel Gabriel, benevolent but confused, is a lousy economist.

34
00:03:32.400 --> 00:03:36.100
So they'll count, fix these guys up, they'll double their money supply, and then they'll shut up.

35
00:03:36.100 --> 00:03:38.400
They'll satisfy their complaints.

36
00:03:38.400 --> 00:03:44.120
So overnight everybody's money supply gets doubled magically, your bank account, your wallet, your purse, etc. gets doubled.

37
00:03:44.120 --> 00:03:49.080
And Hume talks about it, he doesn't say that he doesn't use the word Angel Gabriel model, that's basically what it is.

38
00:03:49.080 --> 00:03:55.960
And then what happens, well then everybody rushes out, spends it, and then according to Hume, prices overall double and that's it.

39
00:03:55.960 --> 00:04:01.240
In other words, you leap quickly from the one equilibrium state to the other equilibrium state without talking about the process.

40
00:04:01.240 --> 00:04:07.480
With Cantillon it's very different, you have a different people's benefit and different people lose out.

41
00:04:07.480 --> 00:04:13.480
In this model, for example, the guys will know what's going on, rush out at six in the morning or eight in the morning and spend everything immediately.

42
00:04:13.480 --> 00:04:19.480
The other guys who decide to save it, of course, are shafted, because they find the prices have doubled before they get around to spending it.

43
00:04:19.480 --> 00:04:26.480
So there are differences in sort of benefits or burdens.

44
00:04:26.480 --> 00:04:32.480
So with Hume, a very good analysis is the first approximation of how the money supply increases prices.

45
00:04:32.480 --> 00:04:39.480
The Pre-Austrian Process and the Differences in Micro-Level

46
00:05:02.480 --> 00:05:14.480
The British have things going on in the micro-world, supplying the man, and suddenly in the macro-world you have quantity and velocity and all that. It's totally different. There's no relationship between the two of them.

47
00:05:14.480 --> 00:05:24.480
I should say something about Candelon the man, Richard Candelon. He's a fascinating figure. One of the reasons why he's so good about money is he was a great monetary practitioner.

48
00:05:24.480 --> 00:05:28.880
The British Catholic banker who moved to the Jacobite Court in France, where the Stuart

49
00:05:28.880 --> 00:05:31.560
Pretender was located, and he became the banker.

50
00:05:31.560 --> 00:05:34.280
His cousin's role was very confusing because his cousin's role was named Richard, and

51
00:05:34.280 --> 00:05:37.760
his uncle's name was about eight Richard cantalons, and it was easy to get confused.

52
00:05:37.760 --> 00:05:41.360
One great cantalon expert, Antoine Murphy, University of Dublin, who was the great big

53
00:05:41.360 --> 00:05:45.160
expert on the cantalon family, worked the whole thing out, a genealogical map.

54
00:05:45.160 --> 00:05:50.480
At any rate, Cantalon gets to become the banker to Stuart Pretender, and he becomes a big

55
00:05:50.480 --> 00:06:05.060
The first paper money ever was 1690 in Massachusetts. Before that, gold was money. The only way

56
00:06:05.060 --> 00:06:10.760
the government could do anything was clip the coin. When paper money comes in, the great

57
00:06:10.760 --> 00:06:14.600
new invention for the government means you can just print money ad lib. Essentially,

58
00:06:14.600 --> 00:06:20.700
John Law, the Scottish adventurer, gets ahold of the royal government in Paris and convinces

59
00:06:20.700 --> 00:06:24.700
them he should be the central banker and print money, and through unlimited inflation you

60
00:06:24.700 --> 00:06:29.140
can wipe out the public debt, bring prosperity, and all the rest of it.

61
00:06:29.140 --> 00:06:35.300
So Candelon, the legend is, Law goes to Candelon and says, look, you're the only person here

62
00:06:35.300 --> 00:06:36.300
who can challenge me.

63
00:06:36.300 --> 00:06:41.300
He says, no, I'll give you 24 hours to get out unless we throw you in the Bastille.

64
00:06:41.300 --> 00:06:45.300
Canlon says, no, it's better for us to join forces, I'll become a lawyer.

65
00:06:45.300 --> 00:06:50.300
So he and law and some other guy named Beau Gage become a three-man triad running this whole system.

66
00:06:50.300 --> 00:06:53.300
So Canlon knew the whole system was going to collapse.

67
00:06:53.300 --> 00:07:01.300
And what Canlon did was he loaned a lot of money to these guys at very high interest rates, cashed it in,

68
00:07:01.300 --> 00:07:08.300
sold the collateral, and then skipped town, skipped the company, just before the great collapse of the law in the Mississippi bubble.

69
00:07:08.300 --> 00:07:15.300
The book was very influential, even when it was still unpublished, in the early 30s, and became published, printed in 1755 after he died, and was read by everybody in France, all the laissez-faire people, all the intellectuals, central senators, and so on.

70
00:07:38.300 --> 00:07:43.620
One of the things about Cantillon was he had mansions in every city in Europe. Probably

71
00:07:43.620 --> 00:07:48.060
the only economist history of thought was murdered. I can't think of anybody else except

72
00:07:48.060 --> 00:07:51.700
Salerno, a victim or something like that. He was murdered presumably by his disappointed

73
00:07:51.700 --> 00:07:56.980
servant, who had skipped town with his jewels or something. At any rate, but Antoine Murphy

74
00:07:56.980 --> 00:08:00.540
told me privately, he refuses to publish it because he hasn't got enough data on it yet.

75
00:08:00.540 --> 00:08:03.900
It's a marvelous story. He claims that Cantillon really didn't die there. He was heavily

76
00:08:03.900 --> 00:08:08.340
The thing is that he skipped out on himself and went to Borneo, where his papers or whatever

77
00:08:08.340 --> 00:08:15.340
will remain or die 20 years later, but at any rate, yes, great character, marvelous character.

78
00:08:15.340 --> 00:08:19.660
Now the thing is about Catalan, he wasn't a pure free trader, but he was really a man

79
00:08:19.660 --> 00:08:20.660
of the doubt.

80
00:08:20.660 --> 00:08:25.740
What he said was, he said, well, if we bring treasure into the kingdom, when we spend the

81
00:08:25.740 --> 00:08:26.740
money, we'll increase prices.

82
00:08:26.740 --> 00:08:30.420
So he advised the king not to spend the money, it's not a great advice, in other words,

83
00:08:30.420 --> 00:08:49.420
After Canallon, we had the physiocrats in the mid-18th century, who were laissez-faire people,

84
00:08:49.420 --> 00:08:52.420
who were quite nutty in many ways and had various deviations.

85
00:08:52.420 --> 00:08:56.420
The interesting thing about physiocrats, they were the first real sect of school of thought.

86
00:08:56.420 --> 00:09:13.420
You know the date at which the school was founded, it was one moment in July 1757 when Dr. Kenay, the founder, the guru of this thing, met Count Mirabeau, who in those days was a Catalonian, a Catalonian disciple, and immediately shifted to Kenay.

87
00:09:13.420 --> 00:09:18.420
And it became a two-man school of thought. I mean, to have a school of thought, you have to have at least two people. And this was it.

88
00:09:18.420 --> 00:09:25.420
Now the thing is, they're both very highly placed. Kenay was a physician, distinguished physician. He became the physician of the court.

89
00:09:25.420 --> 00:09:28.820
Physician to the court, first to the king's top mistress.

90
00:09:28.820 --> 00:09:34.120
There was, by the way, a thing that was the only way to influence the king and try to convert him to laissez-faire was to convert the king's top mistress.

91
00:09:34.120 --> 00:09:40.120
This was done by Archbishop Fenningham in the early 18th century, late 17th.

92
00:09:40.120 --> 00:09:49.020
And Cain was going to be physician to Madame de Pompadour, who was the king's top mistress, and then become the influential of court.

93
00:09:49.020 --> 00:09:54.220
Amirabelle was influential. First of all, he had just written a massive book called A Friend of Man.

94
00:09:54.220 --> 00:10:01.220
The multi-part work, which is incomprehensible, but the thing is, it was very popular because it was written in a 17th century style.

95
00:10:01.220 --> 00:10:07.220
Here it is in the mid-18th century, this guy's writing in a mid-17th century style, so it sort of charmed everybody, and it was a bestseller.

96
00:10:07.220 --> 00:10:13.220
So Mirabeau and Cantillon, Marquis de Mirabeau, then organized a movement, I mean, Mirabeau, excuse me, in Cannae.

97
00:10:13.220 --> 00:10:20.220
They set up their own school of thought, their own journals, their own doctrine, they reviewed each other's books favorably, and so forth and so on.

98
00:10:20.220 --> 00:10:27.220
Also, it became sort of a cult of personality. The only guy who thought that Kene was the top guy of all time.

99
00:10:27.220 --> 00:10:34.220
For example, his father claimed that Kene looked like Socrates. Kind of difficult to figure out, because we don't really know what Socrates looked like.

100
00:10:34.220 --> 00:10:39.220
And they also referred him to the Confucius of Europe, the great sage of Europe.

101
00:10:39.220 --> 00:10:54.220
Mirabeau, Winsor Foster, Proclaim that the three greatest inventions in the history of mankind are writing, money, and K. Ney's crazy diagram, the tableau économique, for the beginning of input-output analysis, you know, the arrows.

102
00:10:54.220 --> 00:11:04.220
So, anyway, there were laissez-faire, natural rights people and laissez-faire people. Unfortunately, they were a little deviationist. They were very much in favor of high agricultural prices.

103
00:11:04.220 --> 00:11:11.720
I think K&A was a farmer and he owned farms and I think they would have been in favor of farm price supports if anybody had proposed it.

104
00:11:11.720 --> 00:11:16.720
In those days there was farm price support at the other elections. Farm prices were kept low and of course they weren't much opposed to that.

105
00:11:16.720 --> 00:11:22.220
Maximum price controls on farm products. I think they would have been in favor of minimum price control if that had come up.

106
00:11:22.220 --> 00:11:31.220
Anyway, there were laissez-faire people cornered in their lights and their strategic objective, the question is if you're a laissez-faire person,

107
00:11:31.220 --> 00:11:35.660
In the late 17th century too, what do you do about it?

108
00:11:35.660 --> 00:11:38.460
Do you have an absolute monarchy by this time in France?

109
00:11:38.460 --> 00:11:39.580
The thing to do is convert the king.

110
00:11:39.580 --> 00:11:42.460
If you convert the king, you can establish laissez-faire from the top,

111
00:11:42.460 --> 00:11:44.860
revolution from the top, so to speak, and that would be it.

112
00:11:44.860 --> 00:11:50.620
And so the strategic perspective of Ben-Helon and Turgot and Othysicrat,

113
00:11:50.620 --> 00:11:53.580
convert the king, he will establish laissez-faire, and that's it.

114
00:11:53.580 --> 00:11:54.620
Well, how do you convert the king?

115
00:11:54.620 --> 00:11:58.100
Well, first of all, you convert the mistress.

116
00:11:58.100 --> 00:11:59.020
How do you convert the king?

117
00:11:59.020 --> 00:12:00.900
Well, you have to convince the king, it's really in his interest

118
00:12:30.900 --> 00:12:50.900
The Tchaikovsky was a top bureaucrat, finally gets in as finance minister in 1774, this is it, this is the key, it will win out, and as soon as he starts his institute on laissez-faire, he's kicked out, so that's his interest, and so at that point, physiocracy sort of disappears.

119
00:12:50.900 --> 00:12:56.900
Also, K.N.A. was losing interest in economics. He was not interested in economics until in his 60s.

120
00:12:56.900 --> 00:13:00.900
And then he got interested and he formed a cult. By his 80s, or whatever he was when he finally died,

121
00:13:00.900 --> 00:13:04.900
he was just a guy interested in mathematics. He claimed to have squared the circle,

122
00:13:04.900 --> 00:13:08.900
which, of course, is impossible. Anyway, he claimed to have solved the problem of squaring the circle.

123
00:13:08.900 --> 00:13:11.900
The firing of Turgall, I think, really did him in.

124
00:13:11.900 --> 00:13:14.900
Now, Turgall, I refer you to as a magnificent person.

125
00:13:14.900 --> 00:13:18.900
I've written a pamphlet on this thing, which is available here, I think.

126
00:13:18.900 --> 00:13:33.900
Trudeau is magnificent. He was great. He was one of my really favorite characters in history of thought, considering also the fact that he was, first of all, he spent very little time in economics. He was a busy top bureaucrat. That's kind of our governor.

127
00:13:33.900 --> 00:13:43.900
And most of his time, intellectually, was spent on other things, history, linguistics. He was an all-around type. Rowan read a lot on that topic. Economic topics, he was the only sort of good offhand.

128
00:13:43.900 --> 00:13:59.900
And he was pressed into it when he had to tell somebody something. For example, his Reflections on Wealth, his longest book, which is about 50 pages, was written under severe time pressure. He was trying to form questions to ask two Chinese students in France about Chinese economy, or preparing them to ask about French economy, I think.

129
00:13:59.900 --> 00:14:07.900
And so he wrote this as sort of an outline to himself, as a memorandum of what to, preparing questions to ask. This was a great work on wealth and capital theory, etc.

130
00:14:07.900 --> 00:14:12.900
So, he wrote all of his stuff on a severe time pressure, sort of dashed it off, and it's absolutely magnificent.

131
00:14:12.900 --> 00:14:16.900
He has the whole Austrian stuff in there, not only laissez-faire, complete laissez-faire,

132
00:14:16.900 --> 00:14:19.900
without any of Smith's evasions, qualifications, etc.

133
00:14:19.900 --> 00:14:24.900
But also he's got Austrian time preference theory, he's got Austrian Bumperwerkian capital theory,

134
00:14:24.900 --> 00:14:27.900
he's got money in process analysis, he's got the whole business.

135
00:14:27.900 --> 00:14:32.900
And done with brilliance, just sort of in passing almost, a few clauses.

136
00:14:32.900 --> 00:14:35.900
And I would strongly recommend any of you,

137
00:14:35.900 --> 00:14:43.340
All of Turgow's economic writings have been translated into English by P.T. Gronerweggen,

138
00:14:43.340 --> 00:14:49.700
who's a Dutch Turgowian expert in New Zealand, I think.

139
00:14:49.700 --> 00:14:53.260
And it's called The Economics of A.R.J. Turgow.

140
00:14:53.260 --> 00:14:57.340
It's one of these things, a Dutch paperback costing about $60, something like that, insanely

141
00:14:57.340 --> 00:14:59.540
expensive, but it's worth it.

142
00:14:59.540 --> 00:15:05.260
And it's got very good notes and introductions and annotations by Gronerweggen, economics

143
00:15:35.260 --> 00:15:46.260
He says one of the important things a capitalist entrepreneur knows is that a person commits resources and capital to an uncertain world, to entrepreneurship.

144
00:15:46.260 --> 00:15:50.260
He's just phenomenal, and he's extremely influential.

145
00:15:50.260 --> 00:15:53.260
He's got expectations, he's got the whole thing in there.

146
00:15:53.260 --> 00:15:57.260
He's also got my Law of Dimension Returns, beautifully presented.

147
00:15:57.260 --> 00:16:02.260
Schumpeter says there was no presentation of Law of Dimension Returns to equal it until about 1920.

148
00:16:02.260 --> 00:16:16.260
1760, 1770. All this is forgotten. This whole Turgot corpus drops out of knowledge. Again talking about lost paradigms. Totally lost until right now, until recently, from the 1960s.

149
00:16:16.260 --> 00:16:20.620
and why it's lost is an interesting story, by the way along with Turgot we have Kondelac,

150
00:16:20.620 --> 00:16:28.980
the brother of Mabley who was a utility theorist and philosopher, who points out very clearly,

151
00:16:28.980 --> 00:16:33.220
even more clearly than Turgot that exchange comes from double inequality of wealth, double

152
00:16:33.220 --> 00:16:37.860
inequality of utility, in other words the reverse inequality of exchange that I mentioned,

153
00:16:37.860 --> 00:16:43.180
sets that down with absolute clarity. There's others like Galiani who's wrote a great book

154
00:16:43.180 --> 00:16:54.180
The book on money, in the age of 23, in 1751, Abbey Galliani, another great character, who was Neapolitan, but loved France and spent most of his time in France as a diplomat.

155
00:16:54.180 --> 00:16:59.180
His book on money is super. It hasn't been only parts of it that have been translated, unfortunately, yet.

156
00:16:59.180 --> 00:17:05.180
Abbey Galliani was an interesting character. Erratic witty and erudite, and was four and a half feet tall.

157
00:17:05.180 --> 00:17:10.180
He became the social lion of the Paris salons. As soon as he got to Paris, he began to sell out.

158
00:17:10.180 --> 00:17:39.180
The founding of Mathematical Economics comes in about 1720, the first misfortune on the road to Mathematical Economics by Bernoulli, Daniel Bernoulli, a whole bunch of Bernoullis, all of whom were French mathematicians, probability theorists, inventors of a calculus, things like that.

159
00:17:39.180 --> 00:17:44.680
Renewalized the mathematical theory of the diminishing utility of money purely out of left field.

160
00:17:44.680 --> 00:17:47.180
In other words, he wasn't interested in economics at all either before or since.

161
00:17:47.180 --> 00:17:54.180
He has arrived at this as part of his probability calculations, and he's got a whole series of fallacies, of course, wrapped up in this.

162
00:17:54.180 --> 00:18:00.180
The diminishing marginal utility of money had already been arrived at by a couple of the Spanish scholastics in the 16th century.

163
00:18:00.180 --> 00:18:13.180
What he does, of course, he immediately says, well, as the d-u-d-x with the supply of money as a x and utility as u, as soon as you do that, you have at least two major fallacies right there.

164
00:18:13.180 --> 00:18:19.180
One is that life is not like the calculus. There's no infinitesimally small actions in life. Everything is discreet.

165
00:18:19.180 --> 00:18:25.180
In other words, everything is qualitatively different and therefore there's no infinitely small steps that we can take.

166
00:18:25.180 --> 00:18:35.180
and really tosses that out. It tosses out calculus right there. And the UX thing is a ratio, and since utility, as we know, is ordinal and not cardinal, there's no such thing as a ratio.

167
00:18:35.180 --> 00:18:45.180
Also, I don't know what it means to have a ratio of utility to money anyway. It doesn't make much sense, but since utility is ordinal and therefore not cardinal, you can't put it into a ratio.

168
00:18:45.180 --> 00:18:49.820
You can't equate it to anything either, so the whole thing, the whole series about fallacy,

169
00:18:49.820 --> 00:18:55.340
piled on fallacy also thinks, it also says with no proof or no evidence whatsoever that

170
00:18:55.340 --> 00:19:00.580
the utility of money is an inverse proportion, declines in inverse proportion of the quantity

171
00:19:00.580 --> 00:19:01.580
of money.

172
00:19:01.580 --> 00:19:02.580
First of all, what does it mean, inverse proportion?

173
00:19:02.580 --> 00:19:04.500
Second of all, there's no evidence whatsoever.

174
00:19:04.500 --> 00:19:06.940
Some other mathematicians said, no, it's not an inverse proportion of quantity of money,

175
00:19:06.940 --> 00:19:10.100
it's an inverse proportion of the square root of quantity of money, even more silly.

176
00:19:10.100 --> 00:19:11.100
I mean, what does this mean?

177
00:19:11.100 --> 00:19:12.100
What are you talking about?

178
00:19:12.100 --> 00:19:16.100
What are you talking about? More or less, what's the evidence for it?

179
00:19:16.100 --> 00:19:20.100
Just sort of hot air gives me the only way to describe this.

180
00:19:20.100 --> 00:19:24.100
All he knows about utility money is it declines. In other words, you have a stock of money.

181
00:19:24.100 --> 00:19:28.100
You have a falling demand curve, so to speak, falling utility.

182
00:19:28.100 --> 00:19:32.100
And it declines as you get, as each unit, the utility of each unit declines as you add more.

183
00:19:32.100 --> 00:19:36.100
That's it. You don't know about this. There's no ratio, there's no inverse, nothing.

184
00:19:36.100 --> 00:19:39.100
And then of course he thought it was measurable between people, even more fallacious.

185
00:19:39.100 --> 00:19:58.300
In speculation here, why does the knowledge of Catalan and Turgot drop out on the whole

186
00:19:58.300 --> 00:20:04.860
French utility, laissez-faire, time preference, whatever tradition, entrepreneurship, and

187
00:20:04.860 --> 00:20:07.340
why do people then think that Adam Smith founded economics?

188
00:20:07.340 --> 00:20:19.340
See, all this preceded Adam Smith, all these guys wrote before the Wealth of Nations, kind of like whether the same year, commerce and government, unfortunately, of course, was forgotten on the great Smithian wave.

189
00:20:19.340 --> 00:20:28.340
Why did Smith, as Carter says, make waste and rubbish a 2,000 years of economic thought? And why was he allowed to get away with it? Why did nobody even say that he was doing this?

190
00:20:28.340 --> 00:20:35.740
For one thing, J.B. Say, who succeeds Turgot in the French tradition, never referred to

191
00:20:35.740 --> 00:20:39.100
Turgot in any of these people. He knew them. He was a disciple, basically, of Turgot and

192
00:20:39.100 --> 00:20:43.400
Condelec and these people. He was a classical liberal laissez-faire person carrying on the

193
00:20:43.400 --> 00:20:47.740
battle through the French Revolution and after it. He was not just an economist, he was also

194
00:20:47.740 --> 00:20:52.340
a political thinker and activist. And the question is, why did Say say that Smith founded

195
00:20:52.340 --> 00:20:56.260
economics? Say was one of the people responsible for the myth. Why didn't he talk about the

196
00:20:56.260 --> 00:21:11.180
I think there's only, there's two explanations, I've puzzled over this for quite some time,

197
00:21:11.180 --> 00:21:15.500
how the Smith myth originated, why these guys, the knowledge of the French theorists got lost.

198
00:21:15.500 --> 00:21:21.100
They were discredited in France itself, discredited for two reasons, one because Tours was locked

199
00:21:21.100 --> 00:21:24.380
in with the physiocrats even though he really wasn't, he was a political ally of the physiocrats,

200
00:21:54.380 --> 00:22:24.380
Western Ideas, Mercier de la Rivière, the great French political theorist, natural rights theorist, explained to me, Mr. Rivière, about what this physiocracy is all about, and he says, well, madam, essentially, the laws of nature govern, natural rights and laws of nature, and she says, what room is there for the king? Well, the king just follows the laws of nature, and she says, thank you, Mr. Rivière, but I ran lightning out. I didn't want to hear this. There's no role for the king whatsoever. As a matter of fact, there's one lovable guy, I'll finish up with this,

201
00:22:24.380 --> 00:22:31.380
Margaret of Baden, who's a physiocrat convert, and he speaks, I think, to, not Mercier, but some other, I think, Mirabel or somebody, and he says,

202
00:22:31.380 --> 00:22:37.380
Gee, it seems to me there's no role for government at all in your system. You can all be laissez-faire, sort of anarchistic.

203
00:22:37.380 --> 00:22:44.380
The guy draws, I know no sign we need the government for the framework, and blah, blah, blah, et cetera, and of course, Margaret was perfectly correct.

204
00:22:44.380 --> 00:22:48.380
The implications of laissez-faire and natural rights, you don't need the government at all.

205
00:22:48.380 --> 00:22:53.020
at any rate, they were a favorite of absolute monarchy, the physiocrats, and so after absolute

206
00:22:53.020 --> 00:22:55.860
monarchy disappeared, after the French Revolution, they were politically discredited, nobody

207
00:22:55.860 --> 00:22:59.180
wanted to listen to any guy who was a favorite of absolute monarchy.

208
00:22:59.180 --> 00:23:02.700
And also, of course, the physiocrats, nobody really believed by this time that agriculture

209
00:23:02.700 --> 00:23:05.780
was the only productive factor because there was a lot of industry growing at the time.

210
00:23:05.780 --> 00:23:10.580
So for those two reasons, I think, the physiocrats in Toursville got discredited, unfortunately,

211
00:23:10.580 --> 00:23:14.580
in France, and nobody would refer to them, and the knowledge drops out, the paradigm's

212
00:23:14.580 --> 00:23:15.580
lost.

213
00:23:15.580 --> 00:23:22.580
The whole thing drops out as a real tragedy for economic law because then we're stuck for a century stuck with the British.

214
00:23:22.580 --> 00:23:31.580
Essentially the Scottish alignment begins with Grotius, the same guy I mentioned, the Dutch Protestant scholastic, who were Protestants but natural law people.

215
00:23:31.580 --> 00:23:35.580
Grotius was heavily influenced by the Spanish scholastics, by Suarez, etc.

216
00:23:35.580 --> 00:23:44.580
What happens then is that Pufendorf was a Lutheran Grotian, this was early 17th century, I guess, Pufendorf was mid.

217
00:23:44.580 --> 00:23:55.580
mid. So, Grotius' early 17th century and Pufendorf's middle or late. Pufendorf was sort of a popularizer of Grotius, so people would start reading Pufendorf and not Grotius. Grotius mentioned the Spanish scholastics,

218
00:23:55.580 --> 00:24:07.580
Heerlum as being his predecessor, Pufendorf being a hardcore Lutheran, hated Catholics, refused to mention any Catholics. As a result, the knowledge of scholastic economics drops out, scholastic political theory drops out almost forever.

219
00:24:07.580 --> 00:24:12.580
Proofingorf didn't mention it, and Proofingorf was read by the Scottish Enlightenment people.

220
00:24:12.580 --> 00:24:16.580
One reason, by the way, why scholastic economics drops out is when Latin drops out.

221
00:24:16.580 --> 00:24:18.580
Scholastic, of course, usually wrote in Latin.

222
00:24:18.580 --> 00:24:21.580
There are not too many Latinists around.

223
00:24:21.580 --> 00:24:27.580
And the fact that de Louvre and Schumpeter, these people, actually read Latin is one of the reasons why they were able to bring them back.

224
00:24:27.580 --> 00:24:33.580
So Proofingorf brings the National Law of Doctrine and semi-, well, I wouldn't say laissez-faire, sort of semi-free market.

225
00:24:33.580 --> 00:24:36.580
It's very vague, but at least it's something.

226
00:24:36.580 --> 00:24:45.340
The first Scottish Enlightenment person, the first professor, I forget whether it was Edinburgh or Glasgow, it was one or the other, was Gershom Carmichael.

227
00:24:45.340 --> 00:24:52.740
He was the only professor for about two years before he died, but he's the professor, when they began the professorial, before that they were readers or whatever they were,

228
00:24:52.740 --> 00:24:59.580
and he translates Prüffendorf and writes a commentary. He's the founder of the Scottish political-economic wing of the Scottish Enlightenment.

229
00:24:59.580 --> 00:25:05.780
And so you've got Prüffendorf, Carmichael, and Carmichael is the teacher of Francis Hutchison, who in turn was the teacher of Adam Smith.

230
00:25:05.780 --> 00:25:09.780
Carl Michael Smith-Hutchinson Connection

231
00:25:35.780 --> 00:25:39.300
Not hardcore, but sort of soft-core classical liberals, I would say.

232
00:25:39.300 --> 00:25:42.460
Hutchison, by the way, has a very good attack.

233
00:25:42.460 --> 00:25:47.740
One of the places where I differ with Hayek strongly in the history of thought is the status of Mandeville.

234
00:25:47.740 --> 00:25:55.860
Bernard Mandeville was a Dutch physician who lived in London most of his life, who were the fable of the bees and other such fables,

235
00:25:55.860 --> 00:26:01.060
which Hayek claims the origin of the idea of spontaneous order and how the free market works and so forth.

236
00:26:01.060 --> 00:26:03.060
No, I disagree with that totally.

237
00:26:03.060 --> 00:26:07.380
I think the Weiner position, which was Hutchison's position, which was that essentially Mandeville

238
00:26:07.380 --> 00:26:12.820
was not only a statist, but also his favorite to be is really a pre-Keynesian plea for the

239
00:26:12.820 --> 00:26:18.260
glories of consumption, that saving is really bad, that you benefit the market and benefit

240
00:26:18.260 --> 00:26:20.140
society by consuming a lot.

241
00:26:20.140 --> 00:26:23.260
Hutchison had a complaint, I think he basically pointed out that Hutchison is Mandeville only

242
00:26:23.260 --> 00:26:28.620
against consumption, his favorite libertinism, a libertinist rather than libertarian, so to

243
00:26:28.620 --> 00:26:29.620
speak.

244
00:26:29.620 --> 00:26:30.620
I think that's the correct interpretation.

245
00:26:30.620 --> 00:26:41.620
I think what Weiner points out is that Mandeville was a follow-up book called Letters from Dion, or something like that, becomes explicit, even more explicit than the Fable of Bees.

246
00:26:41.620 --> 00:26:57.620
So we have now, and only both Carmichael and Hutchison were essentially utility theorists, utility scarcity theorists, economic values brought about by demand and supply, and demand is caused by utility and diminishing utility and scarcity.

247
00:26:57.620 --> 00:27:00.820
In other words, essentially the scholastic position, since they were part of the scholastics.

248
00:27:00.820 --> 00:27:03.820
And if this is true, where does the labor theory of value come in?

249
00:27:03.820 --> 00:27:04.820
The course theory and labor theory.

250
00:27:04.820 --> 00:27:05.820
How does it come in?

251
00:27:05.820 --> 00:27:06.820
It's very strange.

252
00:27:06.820 --> 00:27:07.820
How does it come in, indeed?

253
00:27:07.820 --> 00:27:08.820
It's not Hutchinsonian.

254
00:27:08.820 --> 00:27:09.820
It's not Carmichael, Carmichaelian, or whatever.

255
00:27:09.820 --> 00:27:15.020
And not only that, but Smith himself, in his lectures, gives the correct version.

256
00:27:15.020 --> 00:27:18.940
In other words, the basic, you know, the famous paradox of value, which Smith placed

257
00:27:18.940 --> 00:27:25.100
on an economic thought, paradox of value, which is quite famous, is that how come if

258
00:27:25.100 --> 00:27:31.340
Diamonds, if red or water, which ever you want to use, is necessary to life, red is good, the staff of life or water is good,

259
00:27:31.340 --> 00:27:36.940
how come it's very cheap on the market, whereas diamonds, which are flickery and luxury, how come they're so expensive?

260
00:27:36.940 --> 00:27:43.420
In other words, you have a famous split within use value, and when it gets to use value, diamonds are terrible and red is great,

261
00:27:43.420 --> 00:27:46.460
but economic value somehow violates that.

262
00:27:46.460 --> 00:27:50.340
Smith allegedly couldn't solve this, Ricardo couldn't solve it, so they don't talk about consumption,

263
00:27:50.340 --> 00:27:52.180
consumption just drops out.

264
00:27:52.180 --> 00:28:01.080
You have a disastrous split between use of value and economic value, which results in marks, and the whole thing of production for use versus production for profit really stems from this idea.

265
00:28:01.080 --> 00:28:10.280
Some of the market values flippories over important stuff like bread, and in real terms, bread is much more valuable.

266
00:28:10.280 --> 00:28:16.880
So the usual story is that Smith enunciated this paradox of value, and the Austrian finally solved it.

267
00:28:16.880 --> 00:28:20.180
It's not really true that Smith, Hutchison had solved it, Scholastica had solved it.

268
00:28:20.180 --> 00:28:22.180
There's no problem, they realize what the problem was.

269
00:28:22.180 --> 00:28:28.180
Diamonds are very scarce, there's lots of bread around, it's very simple, you have an enormous amount of bread, an enormous amount of water.

270
00:28:28.180 --> 00:28:36.180
Each unit of water or bread is going to be worth much less than diamonds, which are even, you know, philosophically weaker, arm, and much more scarce.

271
00:28:36.180 --> 00:28:39.180
It's relative scarcity and utility, it's the whole bit.

272
00:28:39.180 --> 00:28:45.180
Not only it hurtles itself, but Smith himself had solved it in his lectures, his unpublished lectures at the time.

273
00:28:45.180 --> 00:28:56.780
And you might say, well, after all, the lectures were 20 years before, maybe he's assuming

274
00:28:56.780 --> 00:28:59.940
everybody knows the lectures, and then it goes on, that's not true, because the lectures

275
00:28:59.940 --> 00:29:03.260
were never published in his lifetime, only published fairly recently, 20th century.

276
00:29:03.260 --> 00:29:08.620
So I think it's quite bizarre, we haven't smitten, not only a decline, a loss of economic

277
00:29:08.620 --> 00:29:13.300
thought, from the French, but also from Hutchison, and even from himself and his previous persona,

278
00:29:13.300 --> 00:29:14.300
20 years before.

279
00:29:14.300 --> 00:29:26.300
This is true not only of paradox of values, also true of the human international money flow stuff, where he doesn't even have that. That drops out. The whole idea of the money-international money equilibrium and all that stuff drops out.

280
00:29:26.300 --> 00:29:41.300
It's very strange. The Law of the Nation is a weird book. Not only is it not true that he did not create economics, but he lost a lot of economics even from his own previous, 20 years ago, his own previous being, whatever you want to call it, 20 years before.

281
00:29:41.300 --> 00:29:46.860
Smith was growing up, Smith was a young man in the 1750s, Scottish Enlightenment hit Scotland,

282
00:29:46.860 --> 00:29:52.820
so the universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow became the shining lights, intellectual lights

283
00:29:52.820 --> 00:29:53.820
in Europe, especially in Britain.

284
00:29:53.820 --> 00:29:58.220
At this point Oxford and Cambridge had degenerated into sort of rich man's playthings or whatever,

285
00:29:58.220 --> 00:30:03.660
they're not intellectually important or good or useful at that time, and so as a result

286
00:30:03.660 --> 00:30:07.580
Edinburgh and Glasgow become key sectors and people come from all over Europe to study

287
00:30:07.580 --> 00:30:08.580
there.

288
00:30:08.580 --> 00:30:15.580
Smith started off as a clubman. Clubs were very important in the 18th century, social life and intellectual life.

289
00:30:15.580 --> 00:30:19.580
He was a member of about eight different clubs, each of which had weekly meetings and things like that.

290
00:30:19.580 --> 00:30:22.580
There was one club, by the way, when David Hume, his friend David Hume, was president.

291
00:30:22.580 --> 00:30:24.580
The two were very diffident. They never spoke.

292
00:30:24.580 --> 00:30:30.580
Obviously, they were the smartest for all their disagreements with him. They were certainly the brightest people in the club.

293
00:30:30.580 --> 00:30:34.580
At any rate, there was a big club life and intellectual life developing.

294
00:30:34.580 --> 00:30:43.580
Plus the fact that we have a titanic struggle within the Church of Scotland, which was the established Church in typical British compromise.

295
00:30:43.580 --> 00:30:47.580
Anglicanism was the established Church in England and Presbyterianism was the established Church in Scotland.

296
00:30:47.580 --> 00:30:52.580
Anger of the Anglicans in Scotland, of course, tremendously and drove them into the Jacobite camp, by the way.

297
00:30:52.580 --> 00:30:59.580
And of course, the pure Calvinists or whatever, the dissident faction broke off and established the Free Kirk of Scotland.

298
00:30:59.580 --> 00:31:06.580
In the early right, in the established Scottish Presbyterian Church, there was a titanic struggle between the moderates, as they were calling them, and the evangelicals.

299
00:31:06.580 --> 00:31:13.580
The moderates consisted of all the bright people and the multi-types in Glasgow and Edinburgh, and the evangelicals, everybody else.

300
00:31:13.580 --> 00:31:15.580
They oppressed rural masses.

301
00:31:15.580 --> 00:31:21.580
As a result of fantastic maneuvering, even though the moderates were in the minority, they were able to control the Church until about 1800.

302
00:31:21.580 --> 00:31:24.580
That was for approximately 50 years or so.

303
00:31:24.580 --> 00:31:35.580
Headed by Principal Robertson, William Robertson, a whole bunch of other people whom Smith was a member, and they all knew each other and they were all friends and compatriots.

304
00:31:35.580 --> 00:31:42.580
Even though the moderates were not as hardcore Calvinists, obviously, as the evangelicals, they were still pretty Calvinistic, especially Smith.

305
00:31:42.580 --> 00:31:46.580
Hume was not the least. Hume, I guess, was tending toward deism or atheism or whatever.

306
00:31:46.580 --> 00:31:51.580
Human couldn't find an academic post in Scotland, by the way, an interesting commentary on academia,

307
00:31:51.580 --> 00:31:54.580
a guy couldn't find a university post.

308
00:31:54.580 --> 00:31:59.580
Because of his religious views, he was not impoverished, however, since he was a high aristocrat,

309
00:31:59.580 --> 00:32:02.580
an independently wealthy aristocrat, a member of the Hume family,

310
00:32:02.580 --> 00:32:06.580
which I think emerged now in Douglas Hume and all that, all the same group.

311
00:32:06.580 --> 00:32:12.580
So Smith starts off in this environment, however, was also deeply Calvinist, even though moderate.

312
00:32:12.580 --> 00:32:17.140
His mother wanted him to become an Anglican minister and sent him to Oxford, I believe,

313
00:32:17.140 --> 00:32:19.340
in order to follow an Anglican fellowship.

314
00:32:19.340 --> 00:32:23.020
When he graduated, he was supposed to become an Anglican minister, and he said, heck with

315
00:32:23.020 --> 00:32:24.020
that.

316
00:32:24.020 --> 00:32:27.180
When he became a Glasgow professor, he had to sign a Westminster Confession, which was

317
00:32:27.180 --> 00:32:31.220
one of the requisites, and he had no difficulty apparently signing it.

318
00:32:31.220 --> 00:32:35.700
I think this accounts, well, not only for his adoption of labor theory of value of latent

319
00:32:35.700 --> 00:32:40.220
in the game and discarding the utility theory, also for other things.

320
00:32:40.220 --> 00:32:44.620
One of his deviations from laissez-faire, one of his many deviations, I'll get into

321
00:32:44.620 --> 00:32:49.060
in a minute, was he was in favor of usury laws, and he was in favor of maximum interest

322
00:32:49.060 --> 00:32:51.740
rate laws, restricting the supply of credit.

323
00:32:51.740 --> 00:32:57.620
Eddie West, as a friend of mine, was a biographer of Smith and worshipped Smith, Edwin G. West,

324
00:32:57.620 --> 00:32:59.180
couldn't understand this.

325
00:32:59.180 --> 00:33:03.260
He said, when we had a discussion at the Camelon conference, where Smith, of course, came in

326
00:33:03.260 --> 00:33:07.900
as a general object of attention, West said, well, gee, Smith deviated, he should have

327
00:33:07.900 --> 00:33:12.700
Smith understood that if you have a maximum price control, if you have a maximum interest

328
00:33:12.700 --> 00:33:15.860
rate, you will restrict the supply of credit, and so forth, and he didn't seem to realize

329
00:33:15.860 --> 00:33:18.220
that, and so the hole in his doctrine.

330
00:33:18.220 --> 00:33:23.340
Roger Garrison gave a comment on that, with Austrian, and pointed out, quite the contrary,

331
00:33:23.340 --> 00:33:26.460
Smith understood all too well what the concept was, and he wanted to restrict the supply

332
00:33:26.460 --> 00:33:27.460
of credit.

333
00:33:27.460 --> 00:33:28.460
That's the whole point.

334
00:33:28.460 --> 00:33:31.180
He understood that the usual laws would restrict the supply of credit, and he loved it.

335
00:33:31.180 --> 00:33:32.180
He wanted to do it.

336
00:33:32.180 --> 00:33:33.180
Why?

337
00:33:33.180 --> 00:33:34.180
Because he hated consumption.

338
00:33:34.180 --> 00:33:48.180
He wanted credit to be channeled into the prime balls, the prime interest rates, the low interest rates, he wanted to exclude from credit, he wanted a ration credit, so that speculators and high consumer types, with non-Calvinist types, would not get credit.

339
00:33:48.180 --> 00:33:56.180
He wanted to channel credit away from dissolute types, and was quite conscious on his part, and I think he's absolutely correct.

340
00:33:56.180 --> 00:34:01.680
Even when he gets to the diamond bed paradox, the way he talks about it is kind of interesting.

341
00:34:01.680 --> 00:34:04.680
He doesn't say that diamonds are a luxury and therefore of lesser value.

342
00:34:04.680 --> 00:34:06.680
He says diamonds are of no value.

343
00:34:06.680 --> 00:34:08.180
No value.

344
00:34:08.180 --> 00:34:14.180
And he's a constant thing with Smith, an attack on consumption, an attack on immaterial consumption.

345
00:34:14.180 --> 00:34:21.180
And one of the reasons I think he adopts the idea that some labor is productive, labor which embodies material objects,

346
00:34:21.180 --> 00:34:24.180
and other labor which is unproductive, in other words, services,

347
00:34:24.180 --> 00:34:29.180
He wasn't so much interested in material objects. He was interested in capital. He wanted capital investment.

348
00:34:29.180 --> 00:34:34.180
In other words, he disagreed with the time preference, the saving consumption, the preferences of the market.

349
00:34:34.180 --> 00:34:37.180
He wanted more saving and less consumption, basically.

350
00:34:37.180 --> 00:34:42.180
And one of the ways, usually one way to channel consumption into prime borrowers,

351
00:34:42.180 --> 00:34:47.180
in general, he disliked consumption, fripperies, one of the tax consumptions.

352
00:34:47.180 --> 00:34:52.180
He wanted all sorts of ways by which he would, I would say, restructure the preferences of the market.

353
00:34:52.180 --> 00:35:02.180
And it all fits in with what I call the Calvinist approach to all this, where luxury becomes evil, anything beyond some moderate consumption becomes wicked.

354
00:35:02.180 --> 00:35:08.180
So that was one of his deviations. The idea of productive labor fits right into that, building up capital investment.

355
00:35:08.180 --> 00:35:15.180
So the opposite deviation from the physiocratic Mandeville one, where only consumption is good and saving is evil, this is the opposite.

356
00:35:15.180 --> 00:35:18.180
And a lot of free market economists, by the way, still hold this.

357
00:35:18.180 --> 00:35:32.180
The supply siders, for example, will say we have to lower marginal tax rates because we want people to save and invest more, saving and investment in good, but if saving and investment in good then the consumption must be in some way bad,

358
00:35:32.180 --> 00:35:46.180
that's why people are adjusting their own proportions, and so a lot of this you'll get the same sort of, even now, the same sort of idea that saving good and of course consumption bad is not explicitly stated, but of course it is part of the paradigm.

359
00:35:46.180 --> 00:35:56.220
In addition to the fact that he leaves out the productive labor stuff, he creates a lot

360
00:35:56.220 --> 00:35:57.220
of problems.

361
00:35:57.220 --> 00:36:00.660
Theory of Value is a very confused writer.

362
00:36:00.660 --> 00:36:04.580
Theory of Value is about three or four independent coexisting theories of value in there.

363
00:36:04.580 --> 00:36:07.820
On one hand, he puts too much emphasis on the division of labor, the neglect of investment

364
00:36:07.820 --> 00:36:08.820
of capital.

365
00:36:08.820 --> 00:36:12.380
On the other hand, in his later books, toward the end of the book, he attacks the division

366
00:36:12.380 --> 00:36:14.740
of labor, causing alienation and all the rest of this stuff.

367
00:36:14.740 --> 00:36:43.460
The Theory of Money leaves out even the Hume stuff, much less the Camelot stuff, on money

368
00:36:43.460 --> 00:36:50.460
and Prices. He leaves out a lot of stuff. He leaves out a lot of stuff that either he had or Hutchison had previously.

369
00:36:50.460 --> 00:36:56.460
I have a list of a compilation of deviations from laissez-faire of Smith. They're pretty long.

370
00:36:56.460 --> 00:37:02.460
I'll tell you that. Of course, there's the Navigation Acts, the National Defense, which include practically everything.

371
00:37:02.460 --> 00:37:06.460
The Marshall Spirit Decay. His favorite government-run education.

372
00:37:06.460 --> 00:37:10.460
In order to inculcate obedience to the state among the populace.

373
00:37:10.460 --> 00:37:13.460
Scarcely a laissez-faire doctrine.

374
00:37:13.460 --> 00:37:19.460
According to Smith, an instructive and intelligent people besides are always more decent and orderly than an ignorant and stupid one.

375
00:37:19.460 --> 00:37:24.460
They feel themselves more respectable and more likely to obtain the respect of their lawful superiors, says Smith.

376
00:37:24.460 --> 00:37:27.460
And they are therefore more disposed to respect those superiors.

377
00:37:27.460 --> 00:37:32.460
They are less apt to be misled in any wanton or unnecessary opposition to the measures of government.

378
00:37:32.460 --> 00:37:34.460
That's why he's in favor of government-run education.

379
00:37:34.460 --> 00:37:36.460
That was a status, let's face it.

380
00:37:36.460 --> 00:37:51.460
He was a fair person. He was in favor of regulating bank paper, allowing fractional reserve banking, which most of his predecessors were against, by the way, including Hume. Hume was a hardcore, 100% gold person. He thought all banking fractional reserve banking was fraud.

381
00:37:51.460 --> 00:38:00.460
Most of his friends and predecessors did. It was only Smith who started bringing in bank credit. He was in favor of public works, including highways, bridges and harbors.

382
00:38:00.460 --> 00:38:05.020
on the rationale that private enterprise would not have the incentive to maintain them properly

383
00:38:05.020 --> 00:38:10.060
rather odd position to take and a particularly lengthy list of taxes which he advocated each

384
00:38:10.060 --> 00:38:15.300
of which interfered in the free market. For example, he was sort of a pre-Georgist as

385
00:38:15.300 --> 00:38:19.940
Ricardo was definitely a pre-Georgist. See, all these guys including Smith believe that

386
00:38:19.940 --> 00:38:24.580
the landlord had no function and the farmers had a function, the landlord just ownership

387
00:38:24.580 --> 00:38:30.420
of land was functionless and therefore can be taxed. It's a tax on rent. The whole smearing

388
00:38:30.420 --> 00:38:36.420
The whole vicious smear of rent, which really starts with Smith, and Ricardo maximizes it.

389
00:38:36.420 --> 00:38:41.420
But they didn't understand, for example, that landlords performed a very important function, namely allocating scarce land.

390
00:38:41.420 --> 00:38:45.420
Extremely important functions, they didn't think in terms of allocation.

391
00:38:45.420 --> 00:38:51.420
They also favored taxes on the import of foreign manufacturers, moderate taxes, taxes on the export of rural world,

392
00:38:51.420 --> 00:38:58.420
even when the free trade thing had a lot of deviations on that, and heavy taxes on luxurious consumption, as I mentioned,

393
00:38:58.420 --> 00:39:01.420
Taxes on Luxury Carriages

394
00:39:01.420 --> 00:39:04.420
Specifically to quote, tax the indolence and vanity of the rich, unquote.

395
00:39:04.420 --> 00:39:07.420
Once again, the Calvinist thrust.

396
00:39:07.420 --> 00:39:10.420
It also has, again, a puritanical hostility to liquor,

397
00:39:10.420 --> 00:39:13.420
which, even though it's not a post-millennialist,

398
00:39:13.420 --> 00:39:16.420
but the liquor, the anti-liquor thing was already there.

399
00:39:16.420 --> 00:39:19.420
They call for heavy tax on distilleries in order to crack down on hard liquor,

400
00:39:19.420 --> 00:39:23.420
and induce people to drink instead the, quote, wholesome and invigorating liquor of beer and ale.

401
00:39:23.420 --> 00:39:25.420
Somehow that was okay,

402
00:39:25.420 --> 00:39:29.420
Hard liquor is evil, sin.

403
00:39:29.420 --> 00:39:35.420
But even an ale was a failure of a high retail tax and retail sale of rural liquor to discourage ale houses.

404
00:39:35.420 --> 00:39:41.420
Of course, he was also in favor of the Soap the Rich policy of progressive income taxation, let it never be forgotten with Smith.

405
00:39:41.420 --> 00:39:46.420
I mean, who would wear a Smith tie after this, right?

406
00:39:46.420 --> 00:39:53.420
Also, I say, usually the ones I've already gotten into, even though Tour de l'Or and Cantaloupe are already blasted usually off the face of the map.

407
00:39:53.420 --> 00:39:58.420
Even Bentham was against the usual rules. Even Bentham was one of my least favorite people also.

408
00:39:58.420 --> 00:40:01.420
Now the interesting thing about Smith, one of the most interesting, two charming things,

409
00:40:01.420 --> 00:40:05.420
as an article by Anderson, Gary Anderson, I think Tolleson was involved in this thing, right?

410
00:40:05.420 --> 00:40:08.420
A marvelous article called Adam Smith and the Custom House.

411
00:40:08.420 --> 00:40:11.420
The one interesting thing about Smith, he was a great free trade laissez-faire person.

412
00:40:11.420 --> 00:40:15.420
How come he spent the last 12 years of his life as a customs official?

413
00:40:15.420 --> 00:40:20.420
Not just a customs official, but a member of the customs commissioners running the whole customs system.

414
00:40:20.420 --> 00:40:25.940
Extracting tariffs and all that. Cracking down on smugglers. How do you square this?

415
00:40:25.940 --> 00:40:30.660
The usual whitewash of Smith is, well, he just uses it as a sinecure. It's called a no-show job.

416
00:40:30.660 --> 00:40:40.580
Like in the Bronx, we have pothole inspectors. For $8,000 a year, if you find a pothole to report it, you call in.

417
00:40:40.580 --> 00:40:44.660
This is a pothole every five yards. It's very easy to do this.

418
00:40:44.660 --> 00:40:50.180
But it turns out, it was not a no-show job. He worked hard at it. He was there three days a week.

419
00:41:20.180 --> 00:41:43.940
The net revenue arising from the customs in Scotland is at least four times greater

420
00:41:43.940 --> 00:41:48.620
than it was seven or eight years ago, and it has been increasing rapidly these four

421
00:41:48.620 --> 00:41:52.620
and the revenue of this year is over a leap by at least one half the revenue of the greatest former year.

422
00:41:52.620 --> 00:41:56.620
I find myself as likely to increase still further. Well, God bless them.

423
00:41:56.620 --> 00:42:01.620
Are they, however, a champion of laissez-faire and free trade?

424
00:42:01.620 --> 00:42:06.620
And he gets this undeserved reputation of being the founder of economics.

425
00:42:06.620 --> 00:42:10.620
And the other guys are lost. And we come to some Smithians now.

426
00:42:10.620 --> 00:42:16.620
I think there's a Google store, for example, with Smith's descendants and the University of Glasgow.

427
00:42:16.620 --> 00:42:17.620
of Glasgow.

428
00:42:17.620 --> 00:42:20.900
Very few people study under Smith himself, but everybody can think of studying under

429
00:42:20.900 --> 00:42:21.900
Stuart.

430
00:42:21.900 --> 00:42:27.820
For about 10 or 15 years, he was a big shot professor of political economy at Glasgow.

431
00:42:27.820 --> 00:42:31.980
James Mill studied under him and a whole bunch of other people, McCulloch and the whole group,

432
00:42:31.980 --> 00:42:32.980
whole Scottish group.

433
00:42:32.980 --> 00:42:37.260
When we get to the labor theory of value, it's pretty clear that the proponents of

434
00:42:37.260 --> 00:42:42.380
labor theory, not only Smith, but also his direct sentence, James Mill, who was originally

435
00:42:42.380 --> 00:42:47.060
a top Scottish Calvinist who was studying for the Presbyterian ministry, and as somebody

436
00:42:47.060 --> 00:42:50.940
said when James Miller went to London, he lost his Calvinist faith, he became an atheist,

437
00:42:50.940 --> 00:42:55.660
but he continued the same zeal for world salvation and crushing the enemy or whatever that he

438
00:42:55.660 --> 00:42:56.660
had before.

439
00:42:56.660 --> 00:42:59.660
His cadre doctrine continued apace.

440
00:42:59.660 --> 00:43:04.060
As a matter of fact, the great quote about James Miller is that when he was a hardcore

441
00:43:04.060 --> 00:43:08.140
Calvinist, he hated Hume for skepticism, and when he was an atheist, he also hated Hume

442
00:43:08.140 --> 00:43:09.140
for the same reason.

443
00:43:09.140 --> 00:43:14.140
Smith was too middle-headed and skeptical. It wasn't hardcore enough. It's kind of a charming doctrine.

444
00:43:14.140 --> 00:43:24.140
Well, Bentham was a Smithian. The Start of Life of the Smithian, the Voted Smithian. He wrote a very good, his only good book, I think, is Defensive Usury, in which he attacked Smith for selling out on the usury question.

445
00:43:24.140 --> 00:43:34.140
He wrote that in the 1790s when he was a Voted Smithian. Bentham, of course, was not the founder, but probably the big systematizer of utilitarianism, a bitter opponent of natural rights, natural law, whatever.

446
00:43:34.140 --> 00:43:37.700
When you have to cut through the Benthamite movement, a whole bunch of Benthamites around,

447
00:43:37.700 --> 00:43:41.980
you cut through, you find the real core of Benthamism, which is pretty monstrous.

448
00:43:41.980 --> 00:43:46.260
Of course, Bentham really is the founder of modern economics, the sense of welfare economics,

449
00:43:46.260 --> 00:43:49.340
cost-benefit analysis, it all comes in with Bentham.

450
00:43:49.340 --> 00:43:52.260
These people, James Millen and John Stuart Mill, are essentially Benthamites, and bring

451
00:43:52.260 --> 00:43:57.460
in the Benthamite, replacing whatever international law doctrine there was.

452
00:43:57.460 --> 00:43:58.460
And I think it's all fallacious.

453
00:43:58.460 --> 00:44:03.940
I mean, the personal utilitarianism is fallacious, and certainly social utilitarianism, we've

454
00:44:03.940 --> 00:44:08.000
try to add up personal utilities and personal benefits and figure out what the maximum,

455
00:44:08.000 --> 00:44:10.100
general, greatest good for the greatest number is.

456
00:44:10.100 --> 00:44:12.300
It's obvious, I mean, obvious nonsense.

457
00:44:12.300 --> 00:44:15.460
You can't add them up, because all utility is subjective and ordinal.

458
00:44:15.460 --> 00:44:18.180
Bentham's famous phrase, the greatest good for the greatest number, which is sort of

459
00:44:18.180 --> 00:44:21.940
a cornerstone of his doctrine, one of the problems with that, of course, one of the

460
00:44:21.940 --> 00:44:26.140
many problems is, what if, supposing you're on a lesser number, then what?

461
00:44:26.140 --> 00:44:27.140
What happens then?

462
00:44:27.140 --> 00:44:29.980
Utilitarianism can justify almost everything.

463
00:44:29.980 --> 00:44:31.300
I think Bentham might sort of admit to this.

464
00:44:31.300 --> 00:44:35.380
In other words, since there's no justice, no such thing as natural rights, justice, or anything else,

465
00:44:35.380 --> 00:44:39.780
it's all manipulating everything for alleged cost-benefit arguments.

466
00:44:39.780 --> 00:44:44.820
For example, take the idea of, say, a punishment theory, which is an arcane part of libertarian doctrine,

467
00:44:44.820 --> 00:44:50.140
that mentalized before it's pure deterrence theorists, they don't believe in justice, it's all deterrence.

468
00:44:50.140 --> 00:44:55.060
Well, deterrence doesn't have, for example, to deter, take for example this sort of situation,

469
00:44:55.060 --> 00:44:59.900
most people don't want to commit murder for whatever reason, they don't like it, they're against it, they're reluctant to commit murder.

470
00:44:59.900 --> 00:45:03.900
The other hand, a lot of people are willing to steal an apple from a push card or from a food store.

471
00:45:03.900 --> 00:45:07.900
Therefore, according to pure deterrence theory, punishment for murder should be very light,

472
00:45:07.900 --> 00:45:11.900
and punishment for apple stealing should be capital punishment, preferably in public.

473
00:45:11.900 --> 00:45:13.900
I'll make an example of a stealer.

474
00:45:13.900 --> 00:45:18.900
And most of us think there's something wrong with this. It's what the philosophers call counter-intuitive.

475
00:45:18.900 --> 00:45:20.900
Or it was nutso.

476
00:45:20.900 --> 00:45:23.900
Most of us have a view of justice, even if we don't have an articulate theory of it.

477
00:45:23.900 --> 00:45:25.900
But it doesn't throw that all out.

478
00:45:25.900 --> 00:45:30.900
Benthamites also were a favorite example of punishing the innocent, execute the innocent, provided the public doesn't know they're innocent.

479
00:45:30.900 --> 00:45:34.900
If the public thinks they're guilty, it's good enough, right? Why not?

480
00:45:34.900 --> 00:45:37.900
And no more principles and whatever.

481
00:45:37.900 --> 00:45:43.900
What I want to talk about with Bentham is the panopticon, which is the key to his thought, which Benthamites don't like to talk about.

482
00:45:43.900 --> 00:45:49.900
This is Bentham's great project, he was a great projector, he wrote millions of words, much of which fortunately have not been published yet.

483
00:45:49.900 --> 00:45:58.900
He had a fleet of secretaries, a very wealthy aristocrat, and he said we had to employ secretaries to take them down, copy them, there was no force, Xerox machine or typewriter at that epoch.

484
00:45:58.900 --> 00:46:06.900
He was sort of a living and reductive absurd in his own thought. He used to be a Tory, a Tory aristocrat.

485
00:46:06.900 --> 00:46:13.900
He converted to democracy, actually converted by James Mill, because the Tories wouldn't adopt his doctrine as panopticon.

486
00:46:13.900 --> 00:46:17.900
He figured nothing would be worse than that. Maybe his democracy was adopted by panopticon.

487
00:46:17.900 --> 00:46:24.900
Panopticon was a theory which Bentham and my apologists claimed only applied to prisons. It did not apply only to prisons.

488
00:46:24.900 --> 00:46:32.900
It's an excellent, very amusing article. There's a lot of good stuff. Douglas Lawing has a book called Bentham and Liberty, a very good scholarly work.

489
00:46:32.900 --> 00:46:36.900
Gertrude Himmelfal was usually not one of my favorite people, being a neoconservative.

490
00:46:36.900 --> 00:46:42.900
There's an excellent critique of Bentham called The Haunted House of Jeremy Bentham and her book on Victorian minds.

491
00:46:42.900 --> 00:46:51.400
Panopticon is a scheme, not just for the prisoner, for almost everybody, for the poor, for children, for vagrants, for everybody to be rounded up.

492
00:46:51.400 --> 00:47:01.900
It's been estimated by Beth and herself that from a third to two-thirds of the population would be incarcerated in panopticons, which are essentially compulsory concentration camps.

493
00:47:01.900 --> 00:47:06.400
With scientifics, there's no such thing as justice or privacy. It's all cost-benefit, right?

494
00:47:06.400 --> 00:47:11.200
You maximize surveillance, and so you have one guy sitting in the center of a circle,

495
00:47:11.200 --> 00:47:16.400
and all the prisoners, and kids, and whatever, you know, paupers, are all lined up so you can see into them.

496
00:47:16.400 --> 00:47:18.900
And of course, this was before the age of television, and all that.

497
00:47:18.900 --> 00:47:21.900
A brilliant prophecy of the Orwellian future.

498
00:47:21.900 --> 00:47:24.900
Even though you couldn't see everybody every time, nobody would know when you're seeing them,

499
00:47:24.900 --> 00:47:26.900
so everybody would feel he's under surveillance.

500
00:47:26.900 --> 00:47:31.900
That's the philosophy of utilitarianism, it's very important for everybody to feel at all times he's under surveillance by Big Brother,

501
00:47:31.900 --> 00:47:34.400
by the Panopticon leadership.

502
00:47:34.400 --> 00:47:38.480
and so this would keep them, not only keep them on a straight and narrow, keep them working to the max,

503
00:47:38.480 --> 00:47:42.480
we want to get maximum production out of them, let's see 12 and a half hours a day at forced labor and

504
00:47:42.480 --> 00:47:46.720
so forth and so on, and everything beautifully worked out, the idea of course to have maximum

505
00:47:46.720 --> 00:47:51.360
production by these slave labor which is essentially what it was, Panopticon by the way is Greek for all

506
00:47:51.360 --> 00:47:57.040
seeing, that's the controller who sees everything, so like the the older big brother, also inspection

507
00:47:57.040 --> 00:48:02.640
house was another way to put it, this is a big reform, Himmelfahr puts it very neatly, he said

508
00:48:02.640 --> 00:48:23.640
The Panopticon is a realization of the divine ideal, spying out the ways of the transgressor or potential transgressor by means of an ingenious architectural scheme, turning night into day with artificial light and reflectors, holding men captive by an intricate system of inspection.

509
00:48:23.640 --> 00:48:28.640
The Panopticon becomes omniscient and omnipotent omnipresence of the inspector.

510
00:48:28.640 --> 00:48:33.640
This of course makes things most efficient for the goals of the inspectors.

511
00:48:33.640 --> 00:48:38.640
They at one point sent some, so there might be some drawing back to adopt my scheme,

512
00:48:38.640 --> 00:48:41.640
because it might be said that these people have become robots instead of people.

513
00:48:41.640 --> 00:48:44.640
It might be, he says, productive of an imbecility.

514
00:48:44.640 --> 00:48:48.640
So the formerly free man would no longer in a deep sense be fully human.

515
00:48:48.640 --> 00:48:53.000
and he asked himself whether the result of his heroic contrivance might not be constructing

516
00:48:53.000 --> 00:48:57.880
a set of machines out of the similitude of men and so this critical question, he says,

517
00:48:57.880 --> 00:49:01.960
he gives the utilitarian reply, brutal, brusque and utilitarian, namely, who cares?

518
00:49:01.960 --> 00:49:04.200
Who cares if they're just machines?

519
00:49:04.200 --> 00:49:07.120
The only real question is would happiness be most likely to be increased or diminished

520
00:49:07.120 --> 00:49:08.120
by this discipline?

521
00:49:08.120 --> 00:49:12.560
Of course, he being a scientist of happiness could answer the question very neatly, namely,

522
00:49:12.560 --> 00:49:15.240
as he said, they'll be happy almost by definition.

523
00:49:15.240 --> 00:49:18.200
Call them soldiers, call them monks, call them machines, he says.

524
00:49:18.200 --> 00:49:22.960
So there were but happy ones I should not care, as Rizabell Patterson McClelland, the humanitarian

525
00:49:22.960 --> 00:49:24.960
with a guillotine, or the slave pen.

526
00:49:24.960 --> 00:49:30.440
So economy and productivity were what he was trying to maximize, as he put it, industry

527
00:49:30.440 --> 00:49:34.480
is a blessing, seven and a half hours a day was enough for sleep, an hour and a half total

528
00:49:34.480 --> 00:49:38.480
for meals, and the rest of the time I was working on a forced labor regime.

529
00:49:38.480 --> 00:49:43.360
The punchline of this whole panopticon scheme was that he would run it, it would be a privately

530
00:49:43.360 --> 00:49:48.080
owned panopticon, a giant panopticon of slave labor would be owned by him.

531
00:49:48.080 --> 00:49:52.320
E. Bentham. We've got to extract the profits from the slave laborers, and this way we have

532
00:49:52.320 --> 00:49:59.400
a unity of private and public institutions. And so he tried to lobby in parliament, lobby

533
00:49:59.400 --> 00:50:04.760
in the court, and never get it through, fortunately for Great Britain. Bentham had a group of

534
00:50:04.760 --> 00:50:10.120
secretaries. The most interesting secretary was James Mill, who went out of turn, who

535
00:50:10.120 --> 00:50:13.880
in a sense was the founder of the Ricardian system. I really think more and more we find

536
00:50:13.880 --> 00:50:19.160
Milt, I think, is a fascinating character, not John Stewart, not Olimpo, but James Milt,

537
00:50:19.160 --> 00:50:24.200
the father. James Milt, I call him the radical's Lenin, a real cadre type, a real Bolshevik

538
00:50:24.200 --> 00:50:28.520
type in every sense, personally, ideologically, whatever. Although he was semi-libertarian,

539
00:50:28.520 --> 00:50:34.200
he basically had this kind of mindset. I'd say he was originally a Scottish Presbyterian

540
00:50:34.200 --> 00:50:40.120
minister, comes to London and makes a precarious living as a freelance writer, which is always

541
00:50:40.120 --> 00:51:10.120
and Blanchard's on to Bentham, that's when he has a lot of money, and writing all the time, he becomes a secretary, he's trying to organize everybody, he's a cadre type person, he's organizing his kid, John Stewart, he's organizing everybody, his friends, his wife, everybody's being organized in a cadre manner, he's trying to organize Bentham, Bentham was very unsystematic, would scribble all night or whatever, he kept saying, Bentham, why don't you work on this, complete this book, and then we'll get you to the next book, Bentham was writing with friends, this young whippersnapper was trying to organize me, so it was a sort of cultural temperament, clash of temperament,

542
00:51:10.120 --> 00:51:17.120
It was Mill who talked Bentham into being a Democrat, but Mill had his own reasons for being in favor of universal suffrage, democracy, universal suffrage.

543
00:51:17.120 --> 00:51:26.120
He adopted Bentham's utilitarianism and believed in laissez-faire much more than Bentham at this point, but he felt that he was a true Benthamite.

544
00:51:26.120 --> 00:51:34.120
James Mills, he was a very creative thinker, one of the most creative thinkers of this whole modern period, but always pretended, in contrast to Smith and a lot of other people, he originated everything,

545
00:51:34.120 --> 00:51:40.120
I'm just a number two man. I'm a faithful Bentham. I'm a faithful Ricardian. I'm just a mouthpiece of the great Bentham and the great Ricardo.

546
00:51:40.120 --> 00:51:46.120
Actually, he was contributing much to the doctrine. He was one of the few people in history who thought he underplayed his own role.

547
00:51:46.120 --> 00:51:54.120
I was talking to my old friend, Leonard Ligier, about this. It's kind of strange. He said, I might be an economic explanation for this.

548
00:51:54.120 --> 00:51:59.120
Usually, I'm quick to this. I wasn't quick enough on a mark.

549
00:51:59.120 --> 00:52:03.320
The economic explanation being that Mill was impoverished and freelance writer, Bentham

550
00:52:03.320 --> 00:52:08.600
was very wealthy and Ricardo was very wealthy, and so this potential of being a humble number

551
00:52:08.600 --> 00:52:12.320
two man might have an economic, personal economic financial motive.

552
00:52:12.320 --> 00:52:18.360
Yes, master, as a source of a lot of paper, in fact, Bentham kept Mill going for many years

553
00:52:18.360 --> 00:52:23.680
until Mill wrote his history of British India, anyway, he does the same thing with Ricardo.

554
00:52:23.680 --> 00:52:27.960
He finds Ricardo as a retired stock broker, a really bond dealer, or whatever it was.

555
00:52:27.960 --> 00:52:32.960
Ricardo's whole ambition was to retire and become a country squire, forget it, a young retired person.

556
00:52:32.960 --> 00:52:37.960
And Mill keeps nagging him, no, no, you've got to be the great economist, and he keeps, quote, forcing, unquote.

557
00:52:37.960 --> 00:52:42.960
Ricardo will write this book and keeps correcting every chapter, every chapter that Ricardo gives to Mill,

558
00:52:42.960 --> 00:52:47.960
and Mill corrects it and adds stuff to it, important thing, rewrites it and gets him to publish it,

559
00:52:47.960 --> 00:52:52.960
and then he says, okay, now you've got to be our cadre leader in parliament of the philosophical radicals.

560
00:52:52.960 --> 00:52:58.000
Mill organized a philosophical radical quadratic problem. He had about 20 or 30 MPs by the 1830s,

561
00:52:58.000 --> 00:53:04.160
which had a balance of power position, quite powerful. And it turns out more and more that

562
00:53:04.160 --> 00:53:08.640
Mill really originated much of the Ricardian system. For example, one of the few good things

563
00:53:08.640 --> 00:53:12.960
in the Ricardian system is the law of comparative advantage, you know, that international trade,

564
00:53:12.960 --> 00:53:16.560
you don't have to have, you can have, even if one country or one person, of course, is

565
00:53:17.120 --> 00:53:20.160
terrible in everything, unproductive in almost everything, it's still be an advantage to trade

566
00:53:20.160 --> 00:53:27.160
of Money, The Theory of Money and State, The Theory of Money and State, The Theory of Money

567
00:54:20.160 --> 00:54:50.160
Ricardo's real interest is monetary theory, money and banking, which I don't have time to go into, and the rest of it might well have been, we don't know really how much Mises contributed, Mises had endless correspondence, endless walks with Ricardo, giving him the line, and we don't really know how much this stuff was James on, and Ricardo said, well, James Mises changed my life, and all that sort of stuff, and James Mises was a fantastic, very charismatic figure, changed his life, changed his life, changed his life, changed his life, changed his life, changed his life, changed his life, changed his life, changed his life,

568
00:55:20.160 --> 00:55:24.160
The historical approach, which Mill didn't have, so I presume he probably got it from then.

569
00:55:24.160 --> 00:55:28.160
Basically, libertarian class conflict analysis says, in contrast to Marx,

570
00:55:28.160 --> 00:55:32.160
where capitalists and workers are in an extrovert class conflict,

571
00:55:32.160 --> 00:55:34.160
the only class conflict comes from the state.

572
00:55:34.160 --> 00:55:36.160
In other words, the state exists and does something,

573
00:55:36.160 --> 00:55:38.160
it's already a ruling class and a rule class right away.

574
00:55:38.160 --> 00:55:41.160
Taxation, tax consumers and tax payers,

575
00:55:41.160 --> 00:55:44.160
that people get benefits from the state, that people lose about the state,

576
00:55:44.160 --> 00:55:46.160
that creates class conflict.

577
00:55:46.160 --> 00:55:48.160
Everything else on a free market is harmony.

578
00:55:48.160 --> 00:55:50.160
Class conflict comes about through the state.

579
00:55:50.160 --> 00:55:55.660
So, Compton Dunway had this, and they said, well, industrialization requires free markets and free trade.

580
00:55:55.660 --> 00:55:58.660
As the state withers away, class conflict will be eliminated.

581
00:55:58.660 --> 00:56:02.660
We'll have a classless society, not in the sense of a communist society, but in the sense of a free market.

582
00:56:02.660 --> 00:56:04.160
That was the Compton Dunway approach.

583
00:56:04.160 --> 00:56:08.160
Well, Mill had something similar, except it was more narrower.

584
00:56:08.160 --> 00:56:13.160
Basically, Mill said there were two classes of society, the ruling few and the ruled many.

585
00:56:13.160 --> 00:56:15.160
There was always a ruling class.

586
00:56:15.160 --> 00:56:24.160
The ruling class was exploiting the public through taxes and controls, etc., etc., and his object was eliminated, to have pure, free, laissez-faire.

587
00:56:24.160 --> 00:56:35.160
The reason why he was a favorite of democracies, he felt that if you have pure democracy and universal suffrage, the public can't exploit themselves, as there's always a minority, therefore the public will guard against the emergence of a ruling class.

588
00:56:35.160 --> 00:56:41.160
Of course, you now know it was an incorrect theory. It made a certain amount of sense in that period before democracy was tried.

589
00:56:41.160 --> 00:56:42.160
of Life.

590
00:56:42.160 --> 00:56:47.540
At any rate, that was his objective, and he convinces Benson to go along with it, convinces

591
00:56:47.540 --> 00:56:50.440
Benson of Benson's idea, which it really wasn't.

592
00:56:50.440 --> 00:56:55.400
And then he starts cadre activity in that direction, for pure democracy and laissez-faire.

593
00:56:55.400 --> 00:56:58.720
He thought democracy was more important than laissez-faire because democracy is the key

594
00:56:58.720 --> 00:56:59.720
thing.

595
00:56:59.720 --> 00:57:03.040
If you have universal suffrage, then laissez-faire would flow from it inexorably.

596
00:57:03.040 --> 00:57:08.440
He then arranged his followers on a cadre basis, using, for example, organized deception.

597
00:57:08.440 --> 00:57:13.440
This is a very good book, Joseph Hamburger, a very good book on James Mill.

598
00:57:13.440 --> 00:57:18.440
One is called John Stuart Mill and the Intellectuals. It's really about James Mill, mostly.

599
00:57:18.440 --> 00:57:22.440
The other is called The Art of, James Mill and the Art of Revolution.

600
00:57:22.440 --> 00:57:27.440
What he shows us, James Mill wrote books and journal articles all the time.

601
00:57:27.440 --> 00:57:32.440
He wrote books on practically everything. He wrote a book on logic, a book on psychology, a book on utilitarianism and economics.

602
00:57:32.440 --> 00:57:37.440
Books and everything, plus journal articles, plus organizing his friends' kid and wife.

603
00:57:37.440 --> 00:57:42.440
and, plus, organizing the Cadre in Parliament. I mean, I don't know how the hell he did it. It was unbelievable.

604
00:57:42.440 --> 00:57:51.440
He also organized the reformed campaign of 1832, the reform bill. Of course, open suffrage of the middle class in England, which to him was a way station on the road to universal suffrage.

605
00:57:51.440 --> 00:58:00.440
He really pushed it through by an organized campaign of Cadre deceit. In other words, he got control of most of the press by various means, most of the top newspapers.

606
00:58:00.440 --> 00:58:06.440
He got them to lie about the idea that there was a revolution out there. If you don't pass the reform bill, the masses will revolt. It was pure fiction.

607
00:58:06.440 --> 00:58:08.440
The Theory of Money and Credit

608
00:58:36.440 --> 00:59:06.440
The reason why he brainwashed his kid, learning Latin at the age of two days, was that he didn't do it just for the hell of it, he didn't do it to try out his theories of education on his kid, he did it because the kid was supposed to be his successor as a Condoré leader, the kid had a little historical responsibility to carry forward the leadership of the Condoré, he was just an ordinary kid, that was his basis, and of course he flopped.

609
00:59:06.440 --> 00:59:18.440
John Stuart Miller lived in deception, God was not only muddle-headed, but also engaging in total deceit almost at all times.

610
00:59:18.440 --> 00:59:24.440
For example, he wrote an article praising Bentham, this is while his father was still alive, and a Benthamite,

611
00:59:24.440 --> 00:59:28.440
praising Bentham, writing it publicly, and at the same time writing an anonymous article attacking Bentham.

612
00:59:28.440 --> 00:59:32.440
He's messed up.

613
00:59:32.440 --> 00:59:36.440
This really discloses the fact that he was no longer a cadre leader until his father died.

614
00:59:36.440 --> 00:59:38.440
That was about eight years later or something.

615
00:59:38.440 --> 00:59:43.440
Anyway, what happens with Ricardianism, I think, again, it's very difficult, first of all, to understand what Ricardo is talking about.

616
00:59:43.440 --> 00:59:46.440
Ricardo is to understand what Ricardo is talking about.

617
00:59:46.440 --> 00:59:49.440
Both Ricardo and J.B. say we're trying to understand Smith.

618
00:59:49.440 --> 00:59:50.440
This is very confusing.

619
00:59:50.440 --> 00:59:56.440
As I said, about three or four different theories of value at the same time, using words in obscure manner and so forth and so on.

620
01:00:26.440 --> 01:00:32.440
The whole thing is a Turgonian book. It's not a Smithian, even though he says Smith is the greatest.

621
01:00:32.440 --> 01:00:36.440
The only thing Smithian is what Smith picked up from Turgot, namely saving and the Say's Law,

622
01:00:36.440 --> 01:00:41.440
which is essentially the old Turgot thing, that saving is okay because it results in investment,

623
01:00:41.440 --> 01:00:43.440
there's no problem over production and all that.

624
01:00:43.440 --> 01:00:48.440
It's really Turgot's law, which Smith gets, and the Say gets from Smith or Turgot.

625
01:00:48.440 --> 01:00:54.440
And Smith is also the classical liberal libertarian leader of the movement, in addition to being an economist of note.

626
01:01:24.440 --> 01:01:34.440
So the whole thing becomes an equilibrium analysis, which is where you're trying to set some things constant, other things variable, but putting it in words, which makes it almost incomprehensible.

627
01:01:34.440 --> 01:01:44.440
Of course, the theory of rent not only says that landlords are unproductive, it also says that rent is not really a part of cost because rent is differential.

628
01:01:44.440 --> 01:01:54.440
The poorest land earns zero rent, and therefore any rent is really just a differential. It's not really earned, so to speak.

629
01:01:54.440 --> 01:02:02.440
Of course, you could say the same thing about wages. Wages are not part of a course, because anything above unskilled labor never becomes a differential. It can be taxed away or whatever.

630
01:02:02.440 --> 01:02:13.440
Ricardo leads directly, not himself, but his followers. Henry George is a straight recording. Marx is a recording on labor theory of value, which Ricardo lifted from Smith.

631
01:02:13.440 --> 01:02:17.440
Ricardo systematized Smith by taking the worst stuff in Smith and making a system out of it.

632
01:02:17.440 --> 01:02:20.440
And Say systematized by taking the best stuff.

633
01:02:20.440 --> 01:02:22.440
And so that's, I think, the difference.

634
01:02:22.440 --> 01:02:24.440
And you only agree with saying Ricardo on Say's law.

635
01:02:24.440 --> 01:02:27.440
Again, Ricardo is in the same Turgot-Smith tradition.

636
01:02:27.440 --> 01:02:33.440
The thing that happens to Ricardo, the whole system, labor theory of value, theory of rent, etc.

637
01:02:33.440 --> 01:02:36.440
Again, there's a myth, which you've probably all read.

638
01:02:36.440 --> 01:02:41.440
Namely, the Ricardianism dominated English economics until Jebons, until 1870s or even 1880s and Marshall.

639
01:02:41.440 --> 01:02:42.440
It's not true.

640
01:02:42.440 --> 01:02:47.440
We now know that Ricardianism died out by about 1830. In other words, he died by 1822.

641
01:02:47.440 --> 01:02:54.440
In six or seven years, Ricardianism had been smashed by all sorts of people, by utility theorists like Samuel Bailey,

642
01:02:54.440 --> 01:02:58.440
by anti-rent people like Thompson, anti-ricardian rent theory.

643
01:02:58.440 --> 01:03:03.440
And so by 1830, Colonel Torrens was addressing the political economy and called it so nobody's Ricardian anymore.

644
01:03:03.440 --> 01:03:06.440
The Ricardian system is finished.

645
01:03:06.440 --> 01:03:10.440
And so you had a whole bunch of things going on, very interesting stuff.

646
01:03:10.440 --> 01:03:14.720
The Irish theorist, the Trinity College Dublin, had a whole bunch of utility theorists, subjective

647
01:03:14.720 --> 01:03:19.200
utility theorists, who were excellent, put in by Archbishop Waitley, a very interesting

648
01:03:19.200 --> 01:03:27.200
character, who was English and was a professor at Oxford, a master at Oriel College, and

649
01:03:27.200 --> 01:03:30.560
he was fighting the fight against the high churchmen in Oxford, the high Tories. He was

650
01:03:30.560 --> 01:03:35.920
a latitudinarian type. And when he becomes Archbishop of Dublin, he immediately sets

651
01:04:05.920 --> 01:04:13.920
Mouthless comes from Smith. Mouthless gets his anti-population stuff from Smith. The iron law of wages and all that is really derived from it.

652
01:04:13.920 --> 01:04:17.920
Ricardo, of course, is a big mouth-thusian on population, not on other things.

653
01:04:17.920 --> 01:04:22.920
And Senior essentially smashes that without saying so, and essentially demolishes.

654
01:04:22.920 --> 01:04:26.920
It's strange about Mouthless, by the way. Here's a guy growing up after 50 years of the Industrial Revolution.

655
01:04:26.920 --> 01:04:31.920
An explosion, a fantastic explosion of the standard of living, and worrying about population increase.

656
01:05:01.920 --> 01:05:03.760
of Recording, Rent Theorists, etc.

657
01:05:03.760 --> 01:05:08.600
There's one very interesting character, I can't omit in this thing, fascinating character

658
01:05:08.600 --> 01:05:13.840
named John Ray, who is a Scotsman, and one person from Bombardier does acknowledge as

659
01:05:13.840 --> 01:05:19.200
being a pre-Bombardierian, pre-time preference, pre-Austrian Capital Theorist, and he's a

660
01:05:19.200 --> 01:05:20.200
very strange duck.

661
01:05:20.200 --> 01:05:25.280
He's a Scottish physician who's sort of unemployed and doesn't do well, he has a marital problem,

662
01:05:25.280 --> 01:05:27.080
and anyway he leaves Scotland for Canada.

663
01:05:27.080 --> 01:05:32.320
And he's a very contentious character anyway. He gets involved in Canadian, Calvinist politics

664
01:05:32.320 --> 01:05:36.120
between, I forget now which faction he was in. Anyway, he was in the losing faction. He

665
01:05:36.120 --> 01:05:41.320
had a game, especially kicked out of Canada, and leaves for, I forget what it was, Hawaii.

666
01:05:41.320 --> 01:05:45.000
I think probably Hawaii, some minor Hawaiian island. He stays there for the rest of his

667
01:05:45.000 --> 01:05:50.400
life as a village physician. Anyway, he writes this thing. His passion in life was geography.

668
01:05:50.400 --> 01:05:54.800
He's a work that's definitive work on Canadian geography, Canadian geology and all that.

669
01:05:54.800 --> 01:06:24.800
and he writes, he's a big protectionist, he's pro-protection, he hates Adam Smith, so he writes a book in the 1840s, designed to attack Adam Smith and free trade, and then he says, well, before I talk about free trade, I have to deal with capital theory, and he works out a whole history in capital theory, he had no relationship with free trade whatsoever, protection, he works out, it's a fantastic thing, he works this whole thing out, he publishes, the publisher was a New England protectionist, a good firm, anti-Jacksonian, anti-French,

670
01:06:24.800 --> 01:06:31.800
of Money, The Theory of Money and Credit of Money and Credit of Money and Credit of Money

671
01:06:54.800 --> 01:06:59.800
Thank you, Mr. Mill, because you're the only person ever to talk about my book. I like it. It's kind of pathetic.

672
01:06:59.800 --> 01:07:06.800
Poor guys are writing it as a Hawaii village physician. That was it. Nobody referred to it until about 1900 when

673
01:07:06.800 --> 01:07:11.800
Peter Mixter discovered it, and then Bob Barber said, you're right, Bob Barber hadn't heard of it either, and praised it.

674
01:07:11.800 --> 01:07:18.800
So anyway, he's a very interesting character. So all this was going on, and Mill's book comes in and reestablishes Ricardo,

675
01:07:18.800 --> 01:07:43.800
and Mill had such tremendous prestige by this time as a philosopher, logician, intellectual, etc., and everybody just fell for it and sort of toppled over and adopted this and the whole utility stuff drops out and the non-Recardian rent theory drops out and the whole thing sort of caves in and Mill becomes dominant, J.S., from 1848 until the 1880s, let's say, so that's really the dominance, the resurgence of Recardianism.

676
01:07:43.800 --> 01:07:48.560
Also, in addition to that, Mill establishes positivism as a self-conscious methodology

677
01:07:48.560 --> 01:07:49.660
for the first time.

678
01:07:49.660 --> 01:07:54.160
The previous classically economists say was explicitly what we call now a praxeologist.

679
01:07:54.160 --> 01:07:55.160
It was deductive.

680
01:07:55.160 --> 01:07:58.680
You start with self-evident axioms and you deduce economic theory.

681
01:07:58.680 --> 01:08:02.840
Senior was definitely a self-conscious praxeologist.

682
01:08:02.840 --> 01:08:07.360
And Mill said, no, no, Mill thought it was the idea of false assumptions, pre-Freemanite

683
01:08:07.360 --> 01:08:08.360
views.

684
01:08:08.360 --> 01:08:11.360
You have to have false assumptions which you can then deduce and test and all that sort

685
01:08:11.360 --> 01:08:12.360
of stuff.

686
01:08:12.360 --> 01:08:13.360
It really begins with Mill.

687
01:08:13.360 --> 01:08:17.360
And not having great prestige, which the others, of course, didn't have, essentially wins out.

688
01:08:19.360 --> 01:08:23.360
And, of course, with Alfred Marshall, it was sort of the same thing with marginal utility theory.

689
01:08:23.360 --> 01:08:30.360
Marginal utility theory comes in in the 1870s, Jevin in England, and Balra in Switzerland, and Menger in Austria.

690
01:08:30.360 --> 01:08:35.360
Marshall's function in life was to bury marginal utility theory with faint praise.

691
01:08:35.360 --> 01:08:38.360
It was to reestablish Ricardo and Mill. That was his whole goal in life.

692
01:08:38.360 --> 01:08:40.360
Unfortunately, he succeeded in Britain.

693
01:08:40.360 --> 01:08:44.860
I was growing up, when I went to college, I read Marshall's Principles of Economics straight through.

694
01:08:44.860 --> 01:08:46.860
That was our seminar. We had a seminar.

695
01:08:46.860 --> 01:08:50.360
What we did was read Marshall's Principles. It was great, much better than reading, you know, Keynes or something.

696
01:08:50.360 --> 01:08:52.360
That was what we did.

697
01:08:52.360 --> 01:08:58.360
First of all, if you read Marshall, you see evangelicalism, you see the pietism shining through.

698
01:08:58.360 --> 01:09:01.360
He's constantly making pietist moral arguments throughout,

699
01:09:01.360 --> 01:09:04.360
in the midst of talking about the representative firm and all that.

700
01:09:04.360 --> 01:09:09.360
But more important here is that when he's doing it, he takes marginal utility and he trivializes it.

701
01:09:09.360 --> 01:09:12.600
and what confines it to consumption.

702
01:09:12.600 --> 01:09:13.840
Okay, it's true about consumption

703
01:09:13.840 --> 01:09:16.040
and you get the diminishing marginal utility and that's it.

704
01:09:16.040 --> 01:09:18.520
It's true they solve the value paradox.

705
01:09:18.520 --> 01:09:20.120
And from then on, he talks about production,

706
01:09:20.120 --> 01:09:22.640
he talks about cost, and cost is the key thing.

707
01:09:22.640 --> 01:09:25.160
And so the real essence of the utility theory drops out.

708
01:09:25.160 --> 01:09:26.760
And since when I was going to graduate school

709
01:09:26.760 --> 01:09:29.480
or college in the 40s, the general view was

710
01:09:29.480 --> 01:09:31.120
that Marshall had integrated anything of value

711
01:09:31.120 --> 01:09:31.960
in the Austrians.

712
01:09:31.960 --> 01:09:32.780
That was it.

713
01:09:32.780 --> 01:09:34.120
Any good stuff is in Marshall,

714
01:09:34.120 --> 01:09:36.320
the rest of the stuff doesn't have to be read.

715
01:09:36.320 --> 01:09:43.440
The view here is that, as Martin Marshall's famous phrase, value is determined by scissors,

716
01:09:43.440 --> 01:09:50.160
scissors of supply and demand, you have the demand scissors, the rising supply curve which

717
01:09:50.160 --> 01:09:56.160
is the cost, determined by cost, allegedly, and these two scissors determine market price.

718
01:09:56.160 --> 01:09:59.960
However, this really starts with Smith, by the way, of course, Ricardo emphasized it,

719
01:09:59.960 --> 01:10:03.680
key thing is not market price, who cares about market price, key thing is long run normal

720
01:10:03.680 --> 01:10:08.840
Normal pricing and with equilibrium prices, which you never get at anyway. That's much

721
01:10:08.840 --> 01:10:14.800
more important. In long run normal, Marshall claimed that the supply blade, the cost blade

722
01:10:14.800 --> 01:10:18.600
is triumphant. The man sort of drops out and the really important part of the scissors,

723
01:10:18.600 --> 01:10:24.320
the important blade is cost, objective cost determined by labor, disutility and whatever.

724
01:10:24.320 --> 01:10:30.200
So what he does is he brings back a sophisticated version of Ricardianism. We don't worry about

725
01:10:30.200 --> 01:10:39.200
Market price should worry about long-run costs, and of course, one of the two basic problems is one is that the long-run cost never arrives, so it can't be really the key thing.

726
01:10:39.200 --> 01:10:45.200
After all, the key thing is you want to explain the market, the real market, and not the long-run which never shows up.

727
01:10:45.200 --> 01:10:54.200
And secondly is that what do you do about goods that have no cost? Rembrandt's, for example. Rembrandt painted the thing and then corked off.

728
01:10:54.200 --> 01:11:00.500
The price of Rembrandt's fluctuates. Where is the supply cost? Where is the supply part of the blade? It ain't there, of course. There's only demand.

729
01:11:00.500 --> 01:11:06.900
They had to admit, well, it doesn't work for non-reproducible products. Well, after all, non-reproducible is important. That's part of pricing, too.

730
01:11:06.900 --> 01:11:13.800
Isn't it better to have a price theory where we have a general explanation of all prices than one which only explains reproducible goods?

731
01:11:13.800 --> 01:11:21.300
And so that, of course, is not discussed. Non-reproducible goods were just tossed in a wastebasket along with consumption with Ricardo.

732
01:11:21.300 --> 01:11:24.100
All of this is brought back, as I say, in a very sophisticated manner,

733
01:11:24.100 --> 01:11:28.100
and Marshall, having tremendous prestige as a Cambridge professor, dominates

734
01:11:28.100 --> 01:11:33.060
all of English economics from the 1880s until the 1920s.

735
01:11:33.060 --> 01:11:38.340
And Jevons was sort of a maverick, semi-Austrian, so to speak, maverick,

736
01:11:38.340 --> 01:11:43.780
doesn't get any hearing, and he dies young, too. That's totally against his influence.

737
01:11:43.780 --> 01:11:47.700
So what you have is a re-establishment of Ricardianism with Mill and Marshall,

738
01:11:47.700 --> 01:11:55.500
in a more sophisticated form. That really ushers in the 20th century.