Tag: Bishop

Categories
Courses Curriculum M.I.T. Uncategorized

M.I.T. Student evaluations for first term core micro theory. Bishop, 1966-69

 

The economic theory core courses at M.I.T. during the four academic years 1966/67 through 1969/70 consisted of two terms of microeconomic theory (“Economic Analysis”, 14.121 and 14.122) and two terms of macroeconomic theory (“Theory of Income and Employment”, 14.451, and “Economic Growth and Fluctuations”, 14.452). The instructors for the course by academic year were: 

 14.121 (Term 1) 14.122 (Term 2) 14.451 (Term 1) 14.452 (Term 2)
1966/67 Bishop Samuelson Eckaus

Solow

1967/68

 Bishop Samuelson Domar Solow
1968/69 Bishop Samuelson Domar

Foley

1969/70

 Bishop Samuelson Domar

Foley

A retrospective evaluation survey of these four courses was conducted (probably) sometime in late-1970. The original student responses wound up in Evsey Domar’s files and can be found today in his papers in the Economists’ Papers Archive at Duke University.

In other posts we have the responses for Paul Samuelson’s term of Economic Analysis (14.122), Evsey Domar’s National Income and Employment (14.451) and Robert Solow’s/Duncan Foley’s Economic Growth and Fluctuations (14.452).

In this post we’ll look at Robert Bishop’s course, Economic Analysis (14.451), that covered the topics:

Preliminary view of General Equilibrium
Revenue and cost equilibrium of the firm and industry:

Monopoly and pure competition
Imperfect competition.

Factor-employment equilibrium of the firm and distribution of income.

First I provide the information about the course found in the announcement in the MIT course catalogues that essentially remained unchanged for the years from which the evaluations were solicited. The official course staffing and enrollment data that follow the course announcement confirm that Robert Bishop taught 14.121 in the four consecutive years surveyed. We also learn the names of the instructors who taught the recitation sections for Bishop’s course as well as those of several of the graduate assistant graders. Incidentally, two of his section leaders went on to win Nobel prizes in economics (Stiglitz and Engle)!

Next I include the cover letter for the questionnaire sent out along with a tabulation of responses to the qualitative questions regarding the amount of economics presumed, the amount of mathematics and the balance of the course among the topics nominally covered.

Finally, and very much worth reading!, the interested visitor will find transcriptions of the written student comments concerning Bishop’s course.

____________________

Announcement in the Course Catalogues

 

14.121T Economic Analyis I (A)

[Bishop]
Prereq.: 14.03
Year: G (1) 4-0-8

14.122T Economic Analyis I (A)

[Samuelson]
Prereq.: 14.121
Year: G (2) 4-0-8

General theory of equilibrium under competition and monopoly. Theory of consumer choice, of demand, of the firm, of production and distribution, of welfare economics.
Bishop (14.121), Samuelson (14.122).

MIT. Catalogue 1966-67: p. 289.

page 219:

“ ‘T’ at the end of a subject number indicates that (1) a change has been made in the content or units of the subject or (2) the number was previously assigned to a different subject.

‘(A)’ following the name of a subject indicates that it is an approved subject for a graduate degree…

‘G’ is a graduate subject.

The time distribution of the subject, showing in sequence the units allotted to: recitation and lecture; laboratory, design, or field work; and preparation. Each unit represents 15 hours of work. The total unit credit for a subject is obtained by adding together all the units shown. One unit of recitation or lecture credit, and two units of laboratory or design credit, are each equivalent to one semester hour.”

M.I.T. Catalogue 1967-68: Course number drops T, p. 305

M.I.T. Catalogue 1968-69: Prerequisite for 14.121 changed to 14.04T, p. 310

M.I.T. Catalogue 1969-70:  Prerequisite for 14.121 dropped ‘T’, p. 293.

____________________

Course staffing and enrollments 14.121
First term of 1966-1969

1966: Term I. 3 hours/week. 50 regular students, 5 Listeners.

Professor R. L. Bishop with Instructor J. Stiglitz and Teaching Assistant D. E. Black (grader)

1967: Term I. 3 hours/week 62 regular students, 0 Listeners.

Professor R. L. Bishop with Instructor C. D. MacRae

1968: Term I.  4 hours/week, 62 regular students, 0 Listeners

Professor R. L. Bishop with V. Snowberger (grader)

1969: Term I. 3 Hours/week. 47 regular students, 5 Listeners.

Professor R. L. Bishop with Assistant Professor R.F. Engle (recitation) and J. Herrero (grader)

 

Source: M.I.T. Archives. Department of Economics Records. Box 3, Folder “Teaching Assignments”

____________________

THEORY QUESTIONNAIRE

There are two problems that the theory sequence must continually face if it is going to be as useful as possible. The first of these is adjusting to the changing background of the incoming students. The second is adjusting to the changing needs of students who will use the theory course as background for other courses and research. This questionnaire is an attempt to gather information of the current state of the theory sequence relative to these two questions. The enclosed forms contain an outline of each of the theory courses and asks three questions.

These pertain to each heading in the course outline:

Does the course assume too much or too little economics background in this area?
Does the course use too much or too little mathematics in this area?
Given the overall constraint of time, is this area gone into too deeply or not deeply enough?

For each of the questions there is room to check too much or too little, no check at all to be given if the course is about right. Please put the year in which you took the theory courses at the top of each page. There is also room in each area for more detailed comment. Use this space to be specific on the changes in the given areas which you feel would be improvements—particularly in answer to question 3. Use the space at the bottom of each page to comment on topics that are not on the list, but should appear in the course; or to make other comments we haven’t thought to ask for.

Please return to 52-380 (Miss Pope) before Tuesday, October 21.

 

[Summary from 22 student responses:
of which 2 from 1966-67; 8 from 1967-68; 10 from 1968-69; 2 from 1969-70]

Ec 121: Economic background Math Coverage
Preliminary view of General Equilibrium Too little: 0

Too much: 0

 Too little: 4

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 1

Not deep enough: 4
Revenue and cost equilibrium of the firm and industry:
Monopoly and pure competition Too little: 11

Too much: 0

 Too little: 14

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 4

Not deep enough: 5
Imperfect competition Too little: 5

Too much: 1

 Too little: 8

Too much: 1

 Too deep: 5

Not deep enough: 4
Factor-employment equilibrium of the firm and distribution of income Too little: 6

Too much: 0

 Too little: 12

Too much: 0

 Too deep: 2

Not deep enough: 9

 

From the student comments
Each bullet point from a different student.

YEAR TAKEN: 1966-67

  • Not enough emphasis on distribution theory.

 

YEAR TAKEN: 1967-68

  • Need to emphasize modern production theory rather than Marshallian theory. Neither of the courses [121 nor 122] give any mention to the modern treatments (esp., set-theoretic approach) of this material.
  • Both these courses [121 and 122] are excellent for covering the technical aspects of price theory—but both fail to provide a “total picture” of what price theory is about.
  • 121 spends too much time working out the solution to particular cases and too little time developing tools of analysis more sophis. treated than simple calculus.
  • more general equilibrium needed.
    little or no attention given to disequil
  • In general, I thought both terms [121 and 122], despite their widely differing methods, were quite good.
  • [note from secretary: “not in tabulation—she just gave it to me”]. Math in this part assumed we hardly knew a thing—could have assumed more.
    Preliminary view of General Equilibrium: [not deep enough checked with following comment:] but if this is going to be more thorough, shouldn’t be very first thing taught.

 

YEAR TAKEN: 1968-69

  • Was tedious at times but is worth doing—in fact has to be done. Perhaps the disc. of externalities could be related to Samuelson on pubic goods. And the part on distortions to the HG Johnson-Bhagwati-Ramaswamy literature on this in trade theory.
    Should have also included at least SOME reference to more modern theories of the firm (behavioral etc) and to more recent devs in other parts of micro theory (e.g. Becker on costs of time JPE 1966(?), Stigler et al on information and its costs and Lancaster on consumer theory.
    Imperfect competition: too much on the oligopoly stuff, overly simplified Stackelberg warfare etc.
  • Bishop should make more use of the mathematical techniques applicable to the general case and less of the geometry and prose of special instances. This, I think, would clarify rather than obscure. As it is, one tends to get lost in a mass of detail. Still, however, the course was very useful.
  • Monopoly and pure competition: slight shift of emphasis desirable.
  • General Comment: While analysis of this kind (the entire course) is an enjoyable mental exercise, I feel that its actual practical use for anything but expository purposes is severely limited. At all stages, an attempt should be made to make economics more relevant. At the least, areas of realistic extension and limitations should be pointed out to the class as each topic is considered.
    Factor-employment equilibrium of the firm and distribution of income: done a little too quickly near the end more time should have been allotted.
    Game theory à la Nash…What was presented here was obviously quite complicated, but given such a cursory treatment that it would have best been left out. I feel that more time should have been spent on more basic analyses such as min-max. and espec. an introduction to the practical aspects of game theory.
  • Preliminary view of General Equilibrium: excellent
    Too much oligopoly theory, too much game theory.
  • Factor-employment equilibrium of the firm and distribution of income: Fine in classic sense, yet more of income dist. needed.
  • The last part of the course, that connecting the results of partial analysis of production and distribution with the simple general equilibrium model of the first lectures, seems to me very illuminating and I feel it should be given more emphasis. A posteriori, I would have suggested one lecture less on duopoly and one more on that cost part.
  • I think a more thorough and rigorous treatment of the theory of partial welfare economics (consumers surplus etc) would be very helpful in 121.
    Preliminary view of General Equilibrium:This material should be eliminated from the course, and covered in 122.
    Revenue and Cost equilibrium: covered too slowly
    Imperfect Competition: Never seemed clear. Either cut it down or spend more time on it.
    Factor-employment equilibrium of the firm and distribution of income: More time should have been spent in this area.

 

YEAR TAKEN: 1969-70

  • 121—A good course, not very enjoyable but worthwhile.
  • 121 is an incredibly dull course. And irrelevant.

 

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Economists’ Papers Archive. Evsey D. Domar Papers.Box 16, Folder “Student Evaluations (1 of 2)”.

Image Source: Robert Bishop obituary in MIT News, February 13, 2013.

Categories
Exam Questions M.I.T.

MIT. Final exam for second term core economic theory, Samuelson 1956

 

 

This post offers two items of interest. The main item is the final examination for Paul Samuelson’s half of the core economic theory course taught at M.I.T. during the 1955-56 academic year.

Years ago I downloaded the slideshow prepared for the April 10, 2010 memorial service held at M.I.T. for Paul Samuelson from which the photo above has been cropped. Below I provide a working link via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine to the original photo page from the memorial service so that others can enhance their presentations with a variety of classic photos of Paul Samuelson.

__________________

Enrollments for Economic Analysis

Twenty-two students were enrolled in 14.121 [Fall term, Robert L. Bishop]. Twenty students were enrolled in 14.122 [Spring term, Paul A. Samuelson]

Source:   MIT Archives. Department of Economics Records, Box 3, Folder “Teaching Responsibility”.

__________________

Course Announcement 

14.121 [Bishop], 14.122 [Samuelson]. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS (A). Interdependent growth of theory and fact, general theory of equilibrium under competition and monopoly. Findings revalued under conditions which more closely approach reality.

Source:  Massachusetts Institute of Technology Bulletin, Catalogue for 1955-56 Session (June 1955), p. 150, 189.

__________________

 

Tuesday, May 29, 1956
Time 1:30 – 4:30 P.M.

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Scheduled Examination in
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 14.122

NOTE: Students are not permitted to use any books, notebooks, or papers in this examination. If brought into the room, they must not be left on the desks.

Answer any Four

  1. Write a 45 minute essay describing what Hicks does in Books I and II of Value and Capital, relating the parts to each other.
  2. One million exactly identical men start out with identical technological conditions or endowments. How will the resulting competitive equilibrium be defined? Describe some of its properties.
  3. In 45 minutes, state the fundamental problems of bilateral monopoly, duopoly and/or game theory. What solutions have been advanced? Appraise them.
  4. Given a world of 2 men and 2 goods with all production fixed. What can the welfare economist say about the various points of the resulting box diagram? (Distinguish between “Act III” interpersonal aspects and those of “Act II.”)
  5. Two industries produce x and y with constant-returns-to-scale production functions in terms of labor (L) and land (T) alone. Describe the competitive equilibrium that would result when 1 million identical laborers face 1 thousand identical landowners.
  6. In 45 minutes, discuss the principal theories relative to capital and interest. Appraise.

 

Source:   Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archives. Paul Samuelson Papers, Box 33, Folder “Teaching Exams 1952, 1956”.

Image Source:  Samuelson Memorial Information Page/Photos from Memorial Service.  Accessed via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

 

 

Categories
Funny Business M.I.T.

M.I.T. Economics skit from about 1971

 

The following M.I.T. economics skit from ca. 1971 attains biblical proportions or at least displays biblical pretensions. The script comes from Robert Solow’s file of many such skits that Roger Backhouse has copied during his archival research. Alas this script displays some half-dozen gaps, but there is always some hope that the missing parts (mainly lyrics for songs noted below) will be found eventually in some other economist’s archived papers.

While there is no explicit date on the manuscript, the references to President Nixon, a mention of the eighth edition of Samuelson’s Economics (published in 1970) and the reference to Bishop and Domar who last taught the first graduate microeconomic and macroeconomic courses in 1970-71 are sufficient to give us a reasonably tight point estimate of early 1971 for this skit.

I have taken the liberty of correcting the many spelling errors and obvious typos. To improve readability I have also added boldface, alignment formatting etc. Comments are found within square brackets in italics.

Nerd humor, crude double entendre, puns coexist along side of flashes of wit and emotion. But it is mostly nerd humor.

_________________________

Opening Song [Lyrics missing]

Announcer [Text missing]

Narrator:

In the beginning God created the endowments and utility.
And God looked on the utility and saw that they were goods.
And there was darkness upon the face of the utility and the utility was without form.
And God said let there be light and there was light and the preferences were revealed.
And God said let there be a social welfare function and so it was that the preferences were ordered.
And God said let there be liberation of consciousness and there was consciousness of liberation.
And created economic man in his own image.
And on the seventh day God rested because the Robnett was closed.

[Robnett was name of the room in the Sloan Building that served as a graduate student lounge.]

[Enter Adam]

Adam: Like man, what am I gonna do with this endowment of two nuts I got stuck with. There ain’t no one to exchange ‘em with. I can’t get no satisfaction.

[Enter Eve tossing apple]

Eve: Hey man wanna bite of my apple

Adam: Now we’re getting down to the core of the problem.

Eve: Can I have one of your nuts if I give you a bite of my apple.

Adam: Well you see, I suffer from a certain lumpiness in my endowments. One nut ain’t no good to you on its own but I’ll exchange both of my nuts for 2 bites of your apple.

Eve: Hold it: I got a better idea. Why don’t we put your nuts and my apples together and reproduce them. Perhaps we can make a date.

[Gong and Lights]

God:   Stop! In creating this perfect static world for you, I forbade you to break the budget constraint. Now you have reproduced your endowments and broken the budget constraint. Henceforth I condemn all economic men to conduct their intercourse only through the medium of money, and each and every man shall maximize his profits.

[Exit God]

Narrator: ….and so it came to pass that a whole stream of prophets came into existence. And the first and greatest of these was Paul, son of Samuel, who led his tribe out of the gates of Harvard. And whilst resting at Tech. Square Paul saw a flash of burning light from behind the NASA building. And God spoke unto Paul and Paul wrote down these words on a tabernacle later to be called the Ten Foundations.

[Enter Paul]

Paul: Adam Smith who begat Malthus who had a surplus so he begat Ricardo who begat Marx, who By God was a bigoted begat. But Böhm-Bawerk begat Jevons who then begat Marshall who then get begat John Keynes. But Schumpeter came from the Austrian school and finally begat me.

While we’re waiting for Joan to print up the tabernacles for us why don’t we have a sing-song to make sure you know the begetting chain.

SONG – WHEN ECON.
[For the melody: Paul Robeson’s rendition of the original hymn]

LET MY PEOPLE KNOW

  1. When Econs were in Adams land (solo)
    Let my people know (chorus)
    Everything worked by the invisible hand (solo)
    Let my people know (chorus)
    Go down Paul way down in (Adams) land
    Tell old (Adam) let my people know
  2. When econs were in Ricardo’s land
    The topic was the rent on land
  3. When econs were in Marx’s land
    Come now brothers and join the band
  4. When econs were in Marshall’s land
    All was solved with a maximand
  5. When econs were in Keynesian Land
    Savings equaled investment planned

[Joan enters gives notes to Paul]

Paul: During the five minutes left to me I’ll read to you from the Ten Foundations.

TEN FOUNDATIONS
[Text missing]

[Gong, lights]

God: Paul! the promised land lies before the tribe of econs and thou must lead them unto this land of math and money. Thou shalt find it on a piece of old wasteland between the factories down on the river.

[Exit God]

Narrator: …and so the tribe of economists came to rest but Paul was not to become head of the tribe but instead the church grew and a Bishop was made head.

[Enter Bishop]

Bishop… Reads from manuscript in Pious voice

Everybody: Get off that’s last year’s skit.

[Exit Bishop]

Narrator: But the economists were not to live in peace for long for the mighty hosts of the Philistines fell upon them and besieged them.

[Enter 2 economists]

1st Econ: They say that these Philistines have a great warrior called Goliath who has issued a challenge to all economists to face him as champion of the Philistines.

2nd Econ: This character sounds Frankly Fishy to me

[Enter Frank]

Frank: No one calls Frank a Philistine. Take that and that.

[kills two economists.]

Narrator: And now a word from my sponsor: [Aitken Ad:]

 

Announcer: When you wake up in the morning, do your residuals seem to be going round and round?

If they do, you may be suffering from serial correlation. For severe bouts of serial correlation, especially if accompanied by lagged endogenous variables, see your local econometrician. But for the ordinary, everyday serial correlation, try Aitken’s, generalized least squares.
Don’t confuse Aitken’s with any ordinary least squares.

Scientific tests have proved that ordinary least squares is inefficient when it comes to serial correlation. Ordinary least squares merely covers up the problem, making you feel better by giving you optimistically high R2’s, low standard errors. Aitken’s heals while it conceals.

So for all of you who suffer from low Durbin-Watson statistics, the swing is to Aitkens’s. Aitken’s generalized least squares, brewed in Edinburgh, and other fine cities. But you know that.

[Others sing Amazing Frank]
[For the melody: Paul Robeson’s rendition of the original hymn]

Amazing Frank how sweet the sound
To save a wretch like me
I once was lost but now I’m found
Was blind but now I see.

That precious day that Frank appeared
The hour I first believed
Twas Frank that taught my heart to fear
And Frank my fears relieved.

Through many dangers toils & snares
I have already come
‘Tis Frank that’s brought me safe this far
And Frank will lead me home.

Narrator: ….and there was among the economists one called David.

David: All of my people are being killed—I must rescue them.

[hands cigarette to Frank who dies]

All Econs: How did you do it?

David: It’s easy—he got stoned!

All: Oh!

Narrator:…and so David became King of the tribe of Economists.

…and David begat a wise son called Solomon who inherited the ability to always know the question when given the answer

[QUESTION AND ANSWER: Text Missing]

Narrator:…But the economists lost their respect for the elders of the tribe and the world became more and more evil. This threw the economists into an economic and moral problem. The reproduction rate became higher, a labour saving device had to be introduced.

[LET’S CONTRACEPT: Lyrics or Text Missing]

[Bishop enters]

Bishop: I’m not surprised the world’s becoming more evil that Nixon just sits and fiddles while Arthur Burns. I must read the economic word to the econs

[23rd Psalm: Lyrics or Text Missing]

My lesson isn’t working, just listen to the people

[ain’t gonna deflate]

AIN’T GONNA DEFLATE

[Sung to the tune Blood on the Risers (Gory Gory What a Helluva Way to Die)]

VERSE

  1. They increased supply of money till the central bank was bust
    Commercial banks gave credit till restrictions were a must
    Investment broker ran amuck with their investment trusts
    AND we ain’t gonna deflate no more

CHORUS:
Glory Glory what a hell of a way to go (3 times)
And we ain’t gonna deflate no more

  1. They equaled up the tax receipts to gov’ment expenditure
    They raised the defense budget- so to help along the war
    And Dicky’s own account became more and more and more
    AND we ain’t gonna deflate no more

CHORUS:

  1. They lowered the rate of interest to keep Euro-dollars out
    The Germans out exchange rates messed everyone about
    The French exported gold to all as if there were a draught
    AND we ain’t gonna deflate no more

CHORUS

  1. They printed paper money and handed it around
    Sent money to Cape Kennedy got rockets off the ground
    But all the money printed went straight to Herr von Braun
    AND we ain’t gonna deflate no more

CHORUS

  1. Speculators bulled and beared till buffaloed they got
    Stability was never heard become a laughing spot
    The widows and the orphans cried keep down that old p dot
    NO     WE AIN’T GONNA DEFLATE NO MORE.

 

Narrator: ….one man alone was good in all this world.

[Franco Sawing]

[Gong, lights]

[The following Noah’s ark piece borrows heavily from the 1963 comedy album “Bill Cosby is a Very Funny Man….Right!” ]

God: Franco! (3 times) crescendo

Franco: No answer.

God: This is the Lord, Franco (Thunderously)

Franco: I’ll be with you in about 5 minutes.

God: Franco I want you to build me a model. I want it to be 60 equations long and 30 variables wide.

Franco: But I don’t know any econometrics.

God: So! Franco I want you to take two of every kind of variable into your model. Your model alone can save mankind for I shall flood the world with money.

Narrator: ….and so Franco worked feverishly not to say Frank-tically gathering variables from all his students until eventually he had two of every kind.

[Gong, lights]

God: Franco

Franco: What!

God: The time has come Franco

Franco: Do you know what I’ve been through. I’ve got all these variables and stuck them all in my model. They all look the same to me. How am I supposed to identify them?
Besides you didn’t tell me those variables were homoskedastic.
Now the investment’s got galloping consumptions, that infant industry’s riding his business cycle everywhere, income’s got a growth.
The whole model’s exploding.

[Gong, lights]

Franco: My God it’s shorting

Narrator:…and so money rained for forty days and forty nights.

[Franco looks out from model]

Franco: It’s stopped.

[Lights, gong]

God: Franco

Franco: Here we go again

God: You must tell all the variables to leave the model and multiply.

[Exit God]

Franco: Easier said than done. All right, come on out all you variables. Go away and multiply…go away and multiply.

[Enter 2 adders kissing]

1st Adder: We can’t multiply

Franco: Why not?

2nd Adder: We’re adders

Franco: There must be some way. God’s always right. Look, look, they’ve multiplied. How did you manage it.

1st adder: It’s marvelous what you can do with Logs isn’t it.

[Exeunt]

Narrator:…and so a population explosion occurred over night. And new preachers of the true economic world arose.

Announcer: And they begat three economists, Diamond, Modigliani, and Bhagwati.

 

[SONG: JAG, PETER, AND FRANCO]
[Still need to establish the original song used to parody]

THREE ECONOMISTS

(soft shoe routine)

Together: I’m Peter, I’m Franco, I’m Jagdish Bhagwati
We are the finest teachers in the world

Peter: I teach public finance though it’s sometimes hard to tell

Franco: I teach monetary and I give my students hell

Jagdish: I just sit and listen to the questions of Steve Zell

Together: Oh we are the finest teachers in the world.

[Peter does his thing, commentator describing. Text/Lyrics missing]

Together: I’m Peter, I’m Franco, I’m Jagdish Bhagwati
We all have our own teaching techniques.

Peter: I like mathematics—it’s a discipline sublime

Franco: I think talking slowly is a really awful crime

Jagdish: I draw Johnson diagrams—a dozen for a dime.

Together: Oh we all have our own teaching techniques

[Franco does his ad for the MITFRB model. Text/Lyrics missing]

[Jagdish does his offer curves spiel. Text/Lyrics missing]

Together: I’m Peter, I’m Franco, and I am Jagdish B.
We are the hardest workers in the world

Peter: I worked through Thanksgiving but I didn’t get much done

Franco: I run back and forwards from Cambridge to Washington

Jagdish: My output of articles is measured by the ton

Together: Oh we are the hardest workers
No we couldn’t be called shirkers
Yes we are the hardest workers in the world, oh yeah.

 

[STUDENTS LAMENT]

THE GRADUATE STUDENTS’ SONG

[To the tune of “My God how the money rolls in”]
[swaying from side to side, arms linked, on choruses]

ALL:

  1. Oh we are all graduate students
    We study with vigor and vim
    ‘Cos once we have got our Ph.D’s
    My God how the money rolls in.

Rolls in, rolls in, my God how the money rolls in, rolls in
Rolls in, rolls in, my God how the money rolls in.

  1. Our first year it was quite traumatic
    Just like being torn limb from limb
    We made it through Bishop and Domar
    Although at times it was quite grim
  2. But now as we’re facing the generals
    Our chances of passing seem slim
    We’re trying to alter the format
    The faculty will not give in

(pleading)

Give in, give in, oh faculty won’t you give in, give in
Give in, give in, oh faculty won’t you give in.

  1. And then we’ll start writing our theses
    We’ll make a great contribution
    We’ll go to the AEA meetings
    To get in the job market swim
  2. We’ll write up some erudite papers
    With lots of equations therein
    Then next comes a best-selling textbook
    To give Paul some competition

Competition, competition, to give Paul some competition, ‘tition
Competition, competition, to give Paul some competition.

  1. Paul Samuelson’s text is on top now
    It’s up to its eighth edition
    But we’ll supersede it entirely
    And start off a new tradition
  2. The they’ll give the Nobel Prize to us
    Our pride will be full to the brim
    And after we’ve published we’ll perish
    My God how the money rolls in

Rolls in, rolls in, my God how the money rolls in, rolls in
Rolls in, rolls in, my God how the money rolls in.

 

Source:   Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archives, Papers of Robert M. Solow, Box 83.

Image Source:   Sir John Betjeman—an English poet, writer, and broadcaster. From “Myrth Study” at the National Geographic Website (23 Dec 2013). He has nothing to do with the history of economics, but I love this picture of laughter!

Categories
Harvard M.I.T. Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Undergraduate reading list for Industrial Organization and Public Policy. Bishop, 1955-56

 

 

Robert L. Bishop was called by his alma mater to render service to cover the undergraduate course on industrial organization and public policy in 1955-56. He still taught that year at M.I.T. according to the course staffing records, so the cross-Cambridge commute was a convenient (for all parties) gig. The previous year the same course was co-taught by Carl Kaysen and Merton Peck. Comparing the Spring term syllabus, items I, III, and V were the taken over “as is” by Bishop. The only question is now how much of the Fall term reading list was in common.

_____________________________

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 161. Industrial Organization and Public Policy. Associate Professor Bishop. (M.I.T.). Full course.

(Fall) Total 130: 2 Freshmen, 15 Sophomores, 74 Juniors 36 Seniors, 3 Radcliffe.
(Spring) Total 123: 2 Freshmen, 8 Sophomores, 73 Juniors 37 Seniors, 3 Radcliffe.

 

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College 1955-56, pp. 77-78.

_____________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Economics 161
Fall Term 1955-56
Professor Bishop

 

  1. The Modern Business Unit (Sept. 26 – Oct. 7; 4 lectures, 2 sections)

N. S. Buchanan: The Economics of Corporate Enterprise, Ch. 3
H.G. Guthman and H.E. Dougall, Corporate Financial Policy, Ch. 2
A.A. Berle and G.C. Means: The Modern Corporation and Private Property, Bk. II, Ch. 1
R.A. Gordon: Business Leadership in the Large Corporation, Ch. 1-3, 12-14
National Bur. of Ec. Research: Cost Behavior and Price Policy, Ch. X
H.L. Purdy, M.L. Lindahl and W.A. Carter: Corporate Concentration and Public Policy, (2nd ed.) Ch. 7
J.K. Butters and J.V. Lintner: The Effects of Taxation on Corporate Mergers, Chs. IX, X

  1. The Functioning of Markets and the Economic Norms of Public Policy (Oct. 10-Nov. 4; 7 lectures, 4 sections)

J. S. Bain: Price Theory (or Pricing, Distribution, and Employment, Rev. Ed.) Ch. 1-7 (Ch. 3 is useful chiefly as review)

  1. Monopolistic and Oligopolistic Markets (Nov. 7 – Nov. 30; 8 lectures, 2 sections, hour exam)

Donaldson Brown, “Pricing Policy in Relation to Financial Control” (reprints)
TNEC Monograph No. 21; Monopoly and Competition in American Industry, Ch. IV
W. Nutter: “The Extent and Growth of Enterprise Monopoly” (pp. 141-153) in Gramp and Weiler, eds., Economic Policy: Readings in Political Economy
W.A. Adams, ed.: The Structure of American Industry (rev. ed.) Ch. V-XI
F. Machlup: The Basing-Point System, Ch. 1, 3, 6, 7
“Big Business in a Competitive Society,” Fortune, Supplement, Feb. 1953

  1. Anti-Trust Policy (Dec. 5- Dec. 21; 6 lectures, 2 sections)

S. C. Oppenheim: Cases on Federal Anti-Trust Laws, pp. 57-69; App. A, B, C (pp. 963-85) pp. 106-127, 164-182, 250-265, (monopoly cases); pp. 281-286, 291-301, 310-330 (combination cases)
S.C. Oppenheim: 1951 Supplement, pp. 203-289 (Alcoa remedy)
U.S. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., Fed. Supp.
E.S. Mason: “The Current Status of the Monopoly Problems in U.S.,” Harvard Law Review, June 1949
C.E. Griffin: An Economic Approach to Anti-Trust Problems
J.B. Dirlam and A.E.Kahn: Fair Competition: The Law and Economics of Anti-Trust Policy, Ch. 1, 2, 5, 9

Reading Period Assignment

Markham: Competition in the Rayon Industry

_____________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Economics 161
Spring Term 1956
Professor Bishop

 

  1. Markets of Large Numbers (Feb. 1 – Mar. 2; 8 lectures, 5 sections)

Agriculture
Cotton Textiles
Women’s clothing
Crude Oil

R. Schickele, Agricultural Policy, Ch. 9-11, 13-17.
K. Brandt, Farm Price Supports, Rigid or Flexible?
J.K. Galbraith, “Farm Policy: The Current Position,” Journal of Farm Economics, May, 1955, pp. 292-304.
A.M. McIsaac, “The Cotton Textile Industry,” in Adams, The Structure of American Industry, 2nd ed.
“Adam Smith on 7th Avenue,” Fortune [handwritten note: Jan. 1949?]
N. Ely, “The Conservation of Oil,” Ch. 11 in Readings in the Social Control of Industry.
E.V. Rostow, A National Policy for the Oil Industry, Part II.

  1. The Plane of Competition—The Securities Markets (Mar. 5-Mar. 9; 2 lectures, 1 section)

Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Beane, How to Read a Balance Sheet.
W. E. Atkins, G.W. Edwards, and H.G. Moulton, The Regulation of the Securities Markets, Chs. 2-6.

  1. The Regulated Industries (Mar. 12 – Apr. 13; 8 lectures, 3 sections; hour exam, Apr. 13)

Electric Power
Transportation

Twentieth Century Fund: Electric Power and Government Policy, Ch. I-IV, X.
M. L. Fair and E.W. Williams, Jr., Economics of Transportation, Ch. 18-23, 25, 30, 32.

  1. The Patent System (Apr. 16 – Apr. 20; 2 lectures, 1 section)

Symposium, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vols. 12 and 13 (1947-48)—articles by:

Hamilton and Till, Vol. 13, pp. 245-59,
Abramson, Vol. 13, pp. 339-53,
Stedman, Vol. 12, pp. 649-79,
Davis, Vol. 12, pp. 796-806.

R. L. Bishop, “The Glass Container Industry,” in Adams, The Structure of American Industry, 1st ed.

  1. Nationalization and Planning (Apr. 23 – Apr. 30; 3 lectures, 1 section)

J. E. Meade, Planning and the Price Mechanism, pp. 1-104.
B.W. Lewis, British Planning and Nationalization, Ch. 1-3.
H.A. Clegg and F.E. Chester, The Future of Nationalization, Ch. 1, 3.

Reading Period Assignment

To be announced.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. (HUC 8522.2.1) Box 6, Folder “Economics, 1955, 1956, (2 of 2)”.

Image Source:   Robert Lyle Bishop. MIT Museum.

 

Categories
Economics Programs Fields M.I.T.

M.I.T. Graduate Economics Program Brochure, 1961

 

 

 

Robert Solow served as the graduate registration officer of the Department of Economics and Social Science at M.I.T. perhaps even as late as when the graduate program brochure (transcribed below) was printed in 1961. Since Solow went down to Washington to serve as a senior staff economist on the Council of Economic Advisers in 1961, it seems likely that the brochure would have been drafted sometime before John F. Kennedy’s inauguration. This brochure is striking in many ways, e.g. its 100% informational content, presumably reflecting significant authorship/editor responsibilities of Robert Solow.

Five cherry-picked quotes from the brochure I found particularly sweet:

“The M.I.T. program does not concentrate on mathematical economics”
[It’s not what you say, it’s what they hear.]

“The department welcomes applications from qualified women”
[Apparently in the DNA of the department since World War II nearly emptied the pool of qualified male applicants.]

“The purpose of the minor program is to broaden the interests or capacities of the student in other areas than those of his major intellectual objective. While some latitude is allowed in particular cases, the spirit of this purpose is always held in view.”
[As opposed to the commandment “Thou shalt stay in thy lane”.]

“Students who are prepared for graduate work in economics are almost never deficient in humanities. Similarly, deficiencies in science are infrequent; but candidates are frequently admitted without preparation in calculus.”
[You go to war with the army you have.]

“In judging promise, special weight is naturally given to letters of recommendation from economists known to members of the department. The difficulty of evaluating records in foreign institutions and of judging foreign references constitutes a serious but no impassable barrier for foreign applicants.”
[Signal extraction problem vs. the problem of old boy networks]

Incidentally, neither “microeconomics” nor “macroeconomics” appear in the document at all. The preferred terms seen here in the brochure are “price and allocation theory” and “income analysis”.

____________________________________

The Graduate Program in Economics

School of Humanities and Social Science
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
[1961]

This brochure has been prepared especially for students who may enter the graduate program in economics at M.I.T. Its purpose is to answer a number of questions which have been recurrently raised about the program and to add to the information which is given in the M.I.T. catalogue.

 

Highlights of the M.I.T. Graduate Program in Economics

  1. The program is almost entirely for doctoral candidates. The master’s degree at M.I.T. is given in either economics and engineering or economics and science; it requires the equivalent of the M.I.T. undergraduate content in engineering or science.
  2. The M.I.T. program does not concentrate on mathematical economics. All students are required to have and use a minimum of mathematics. Students who enter without calculus may make up their deficiency in the first term with a one-semester subject (Mathematics for Economists—14.101), given in our own department. Most of the work in most fields, however, is nonmathematical.
  3. The program is limited in size. Approximately twenty-five students are admitted in any year; sixty or so students are in residence at one time. The department has more than thirty faculty members, twenty of whom have a major responsibility in the graduate program.
  4. The department welcomes applications from qualified women.
  5. All applicants are urged to take the Graduate Record Examination no later than during the January preceding the September in which they wish to enter. They should take the quantitative and verbal aptitude tests as well as the test in economics (Write to the Graduate Record Examinations, educational Testing service, 20 Nassau Street, Princeton, New Jersey, for information on these examinations. Students in western states should write to 4640 Hollywood Boulevard, Los Angeles 27, California.)
  6. Visits to the M.I.T. Campus are helpful both to the candidate and to the departmental admissions committee. Appointments are desirable but are not generally essential, since members of the committee are likely to be available.
  7. The department would like each applicant to submit a statement (one or two pages) explaining his interest in economics. An informal questionnaire is provided for general guidance.
  8. Admission in February is granted only on an exceptional basis, because many subjects given in the spring are continuations of work given in the fall. In any event, fellowship assistance is given only as a consequence of the annual March competition, for students entering in the following September.
  9. Fellowships and scholarships in amounts up to $3250 are available for entering graduate students.
  10. Winners of outside fellowships are welcome to use them at M.I.T. It is entirely appropriate to apply for a Woodrow Wilson, G.E., A.A.U.W., National Science Foundation, or other outside fellowship at the same time that one applies to M.I.T. As a rule, M.I.T. learns of the outside award prior to making its own announcements.
  11. Liberal second-year fellowships are available both to students entering with fellowships and to those who enter without financial assistance. Awards are made on the basis of first-year performance.
  12. Teaching assistantships are ordinarily available for third-year students only, although some second-year students may do a small amount of teaching. Assistantships are not available to entering students unless they have had prior graduate study and teaching experience elsewhere.
  13. I.T. these are written in residence. Following an Institute rule, theses are prepared in residence except where the special requirements of the subject, such as field work, dictate otherwise. All theses are written in residence.
  14. For further information, write the Graduate Registration Office of the Department of Economic and Social Science, Professor Robert M. Solow.

 

S.M. in Economics and Engineering or Economics and Science

The department offers a Master of Science degree only in the combined fields of economics and engineering or economics and science. This degree is available primarily to students whose undergraduate work was in either engineering or science. Its purpose is to enable scientists and engineers, and in particular graduates of the undergraduate Courses in Economics and Engineering or Science (Course XIV) at M.I.T., to carry their economics training to the graduate level in order to equip them more fully for work in industry or government.

 

Ph.D. Degree

Ph.D. degrees are awarded in economics (including industrial relations) and in political science. In addition, candidates occasionally work for a doctorate in two or more fields—for example, economics and mathematics, economics and operations research, or economics and regional planning. These candidates are examined by special committees, on which members of the Department of Economics and Social Science serve jointly with members of the other departments concerned. Most of the graduate work in the department is directed towards the doctor’s degree. This pamphlet deals exclusively with the Ph.D. in economics; a separate bulletin describing graduate work in political science is available on request.

There are four departmental requirements for the Ph.D. degree: the passing of a general examination in a number of approved fields within the area of economics and social science; the satisfactory completion of a “minor” program in another department; demonstration of ability to read two foreign languages of significance in economics; and preparation and defense of a dissertation.

 

Major Program and General Examinations

Work taken in the Department of Economics and Social Science for the doctorate in economics is divided—broadly speaking—into two separate options: economics and industrial relations. But there is considerable overlap between the two.

All students in both options are examined five fields. Among the fields presently available are the following: economic theory, advanced economic theory, monetary and fiscal economics, industrial organization, economic development, international economics, economics of innovation, labor economics and labor relations, personnel administration, human relations in industry, statistical theory and method, and economic history. Each student selects one field as having primary importance for this professional career; ordinarily this is the field in which he writes his dissertation, though exceptions may be made. The remaining four fields are designated secondary fields. One of the five fields must be economic theory.

Students are also required to have at least a minimum knowledge of statistics and economic history. This minimum is presently interpreted to mean one semester of work in each at the graduate level. Candidates who present statistics or economic history as a primary or secondary field normally take two or three semester subjects in the field and automatically satisfy the requirements in that area.

Students may qualify in one of the secondary fields through course work only, provided that they receive a mark of B or better in two subjects. Students are examined in writing in the remaining four fields during an eight-day period (Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Monday). The theory examination is four hours long (divided roughly between microeconomics and macroeconomics), while the other three are each three hours long.

Following these written examinations, the student takes a two-hour oral examination which covers theory, his primary field, and one secondary field.

 

Foreign Languages

Doctoral candidates must show reading knowledge of two foreign languages; the standard set is the ability to read works of scientific interest at a relatively slow pace. Acceptable languages are German, French, Russian, or any other language which has a literature in economics or which will advance the educational program planned by the individual student. Students are examined by the Department of Modern Languages.

Students whose language preparation has been limited may take subjects which prepare specifically for the language examinations. Students with no previous training in a language frequently are able to attain the necessary minimum proficiency during a single semester of fairly intensive study. Others, who have already had some introduction to a language, often pass the requirement at some time before the end of the semester.

 

Minor Program

Every candidate for the doctor’s degree at M.I.T. must complete a program in a minor field in another department of the Institute. This program consists of a minimum of 24 units, which ordinarily implies three one-semester subjects. The choice of the minor field is made by the student, with the approval of the Department of Economics and Social Science. The content of the program within the other department is a matter for that department’s determination. Satisfactory completion of a minor is ordinarily contingent upon an average rating of 3.5 (in effect, a minimum of two B’s and a C). The normal standard is that the minor work shall be beyond the level required of M.I.T. undergraduates. Students who have done advanced undergraduate work in some field other than economics may often use it to meet part of the minor requirement.

Students in economics have met the minor requirement in such fields as mathematics, industrial management, history, international relations, other social sciences, literature, city planning, chemistry, and electrical engineering. Subjects taken in the minor program must not duplicate work which may be offered for one of the five fields in economics. A minor program in history may include only one term of economic history, since two terms would qualify the student to offer it as a field in economics. Similarly, students minoring in industrial management may not concentrate in such areas as personnel administration. The purpose of the minor program is to broaden the interests or capacities of the student in other areas than those of his major intellectual objective. While some latitude is allowed in particular cases, the spirit of this purpose is always held in view.

 

Courses at Harvard

Students regularly enrolled at M.I.T. are permitted to take a limited number of subjects at Harvard University—about two miles distant in Cambridge—on an exchange basis, without paying extra tuition. Such subjects may be taken as a part of the minor program. Fields for the major program other than those described above may sometimes be offered on the basis of work at Harvard.

 

Residence Requirements

The minimum residence requirement for the Ph.D. degree, including thesis, is the equivalent of one and one-half full-time academic years. No specific number of subjects is required for the general examinations. In general, however, it is recommended that students have at least the equivalent of three semesters of work at the graduate level for the primary field; four semesters in economic theory; and two semesters in each of the other fields. Work on the graduate level at other institutions is considered in meeting these broad approximations of the requisite preparation. Since there are no formal course requirements, there is no occasion to have graduate credits from other schools transferred.

A full-time student is expect to take the equivalent of five subjects each semester for credit; this may include one “reading subject,” in which the student will broaden his reading in his regular subjects. A half-time student is permitted to take approximately three subjects, and a third-time student two subjects. Auditing of additional subjects is permitted as an overload.

 

Dissertation and Special Examination

The Institute requires that all dissertations be prepared in residence, during which period tuition must be paid. Field work may be necessary to gather material; but the analysis of this material must take place at the Institute, under supervision of the instructor in charge of the dissertation. In some cases the writing of the final, polished version of the thesis may be completed elsewhere.

As in other institutions, the dissertation is expected to make a contribution to knowledge in the subject. Shortly after each candidate has submitted his thesis, he is examined on its subject. This examination is oral, conducted by a committee generally consisting of three faculty members, and usually is one hour in length.

 

Total Program of Course Work

The typical student comes to the Institute directly from college with no previous graduate study, having a deficiency in one subject and the ability to pass the reading examination in one language. He can usually prepare for the general examinations in four semesters (two academic years) taking five subjects in each, divided as follows:

 

In the Department of Economics Economic theory—four subjects
One primary field—three subjects
Three secondary fields—six subjects
Statistics—one subject
In other departments Deficiency—one subject
Language—one subject
Minor—three subjects
Total: Twenty subjects
[sic, total of the above is nineteen]

This program is only illustrative, of course, and a wide number of variations are to be expected. Additional work may be required because of additional deficiencies or lack of language preparation. The number of subjects may be reduced by absence of deficiencies, by better preparation in languages, by postponing one or more requirements (such as a part of the minor) until after the general examinations, or by incorporating economic history and/or statistics as primary or secondary fields.

 

Time Required for the Ph.D. Degree

A student entering the program with only a bachelor’s degree may expect to receive the Ph.D. degree in three years under optimum conditions. This will entail taking the general examination in May of the second year and completing a satisfactory dissertation in two semesters of full-time work thereafter. Normally, however, somewhat more time is needed, either in summer work or in some part of a fourth year. Students may need this additional time for more extensive preparation before the general examination, for the thesis, or (in the ordinary case) because teaching duties prevent full-time progress as a student. Many students who plan to enter the teaching profession take advantage of the opportunity to teach part-time at M.I.T. Teaching assistantships are available for students who have passed their general examinations, and occasionally for second-year students.

General examinations are given in the department at the beginning of each semester—in September and February—an again in May. Defense of the dissertation is arranged individually at any time.

Students enrolling in the Ph.D. program with a master’s degree from another institution, based on one or more years of residence at that institution, are urged to take their general examinations earlier than May of their second year at M.I.T. It is not usual, however, for a student to be able to transfer between institutions without some loss of time.

 

Summer School

The department does not offer any subjects at the graduate level during the summer session. However, students may enroll during the summer for thesis credits, for which tuition must be paid. Scholarships are only rarely available for payment of summer school tuition.

 

Admission

To be admitted into the program, a student must hold a bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university. To be admitted without deficiencies, he must have taken one year of college mathematics, including at least one semester of calculus; one year of college science; and a minimum of three years of college work in the humanities and social sciences. While an undergraduate degree in economics is not indispensable, students are expected to have done a considerable amount of undergraduate work in this field. Students who are prepared for graduate work in economics are almost never deficient in humanities. Similarly, deficiencies in science are infrequent; but candidates are frequently admitted without preparation in calculus.

 

Special Students

Special students, taking from one to five subjects, may be admitted to the Institute and to the department from time to time under special circumstances. Admission of special students automatically lapses each semester; application for re-admission, in the case of students wishing to continue course work, must have the approval of the instructor concerned and the department.

 

Deficiencies

Students who, upon admission, are deficient in mathematics may make up this deficiency by taking a special one-semester subject offered by the Department of Economics—Mathematics for economists (14.101.) Since calculus is required for some of the work in economic theory and statistics, students entering with a deficiency in this area are required to make it up as soon as possible. Though this is not specifically recommended, some students may be able to make up a deficiency in calculus by studying at a summer school prior to fall enrollment at the Institute.

 

Fellowships, Scholarships, and Financial Assistance

Fellowships and scholarships are awarded on a competitive basis only. First-year awards are made on April 1 for the academic year beginning in the following September. Second-year and subsequent departmental awards are made in June. No academic assistance is available for students applying after April 1, or (until the following September) for those entering in February.

Fellowships cover the tuition fee of $1500 and some cash payment toward living expenses. A fellowship of $3200 will thus include $1500 tuition and $1700 cash. The cash award is paid in two equal installments, at the beginning of each semester.

The total of fellowship assistance varies from year to year. There are several name fellowships: the Goodyear, varying from $3000 to $3500; the United States Steel, at about $3100 for each of two years (awarded every other year); the RAND Corporation Fellowship in Mathematical Economics, varying from $3000 to $3500; the Hicks, for students of industrial relations, ranging from $2000 to $3000; and the Center for International Studies Fellowship in Economic Development, ranging from $3000 to $3500; In addition to these, the Institute awards Whitney Fellowships ($3000 in 1961), open only to first-year graduate students coming from outside M.I.T., upon recommendation of the department; and the department has limited funds with which it makes scholarship and fellowship awards varying from $1500 to $3000.

In offering scholarships and fellowships, the department takes into account a variety of factors; academic achievement, career promise, and need. In judging promise, special weight is naturally given to letters of recommendation from economists known to members of the department. The difficulty of evaluating records in foreign institutions and of judging foreign references constitutes a serious but no impassable barrier for foreign applicants.

In general, outside fellowships are financially better than all but a few of the department’s awards. Applicants are therefore urged to seek Woodrow Wilson, Danforth, National Science Foundation, and similar fellowships for use at M.I.T., if they think they stand a good chance of success in the national competition.

Students who perform effectively in their first year are assured of financial support needed to finish the degree. Part of this takes the form of fellowships, in amounts somewhat lower than first-year awards; the rest consists of teaching and research assistantships and instructorships. The half-time teaching assistantship covers the half-time tuition fee of $1000 and pays $180 a month for nine months—a total of $2620. The half-time instructorship, which is reserved for students who have demonstrated effective teaching as an assistant, pays the same tuition and $235 monthly–$3115 for the academic year. The few research assistants appointed each year receive a higher rate of pay than teaching assistants but pay their own tuition. They have the advantage, however, of working on a subject related to their thesis. The department is occasionally able to obtain assistantships for applicants in other parts of the Institute, such as the School of Industrial Management or the Operations Research Group.

Third-year students are also encouraged to compete for outside assistance in supporting their thesis research, such as the Ford Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Awards, the Social Science Research Council Fellowships, and Fulbright Awards.

 

The Faculty in Economics and Industrial Relations

Morris A. Adelman, Professor of Economics
Ph.D. Harvard 1948
Industrial organization, government regulation

Albert K. Ando, Assistant Professor of Economics
Ph.D. Carnegie Institute of Technology 1959
Statistics and econometrics, economic fluctuations

Francis M. Bator, Associate Professor of Economics
Ph.D. M.I.T. 1956
Price and allocation theory, income analysis, economic growth

Robert L. Bishop, Professor of Economics, in charge of the department
Ph.D. Harvard 1949
Price and distribution theory, industrial organization, history of economic thought

E. Cary Brown, Professor of Economics
Ph.D. Harvard 1948
Public finance, income analysis, fiscal economics

Evsey D. Domar, Professor of Economics
Ph.D. Harvard 1947
Income analysis, economic growth, Soviet economics, fiscal economics

Robert Evans, Jr., Assistant Professor of Industrial Relations
Ph.D. Chicago 1959
Labor economics, industrial relations

Franklin M. Fisher, Assistant Professor of Economics
Ph.D. Harvard 1960
Econometrics, price and allocation theory

Harold A. Freeman, Professor of Statistics
S.B. M.I.T. 1931
Statistical theory, experimental design probability methods

Ralph E. Freeman, Professor of Economics, Emeritus; Lecturer
A.M. McMaster 1914, B. Litt. Oxford 1919
Monetary economics

Everett E. Hagen, Professor of Economics
Ph.D. Wisconsin 1941
Economic development, income analysis

Ralph C. James, Jr., Assistant Professor of Insutrial Relations
Ph.D. Cornell 1957
Labor economics, industrial relations

Charles P. Kindleberger, Professor of Economics
Ph.D. Columbia 1937
International economics, monetary theory and policy

Edwin Kuh, Associate Professor of Economics
Ph.D. Harvard 1955
Econometrics, income analysis

Max F. Millikan, Professor of Economics
Ph.D. Yale 1941
Economic development, income analysis

Charles A. Myers, Professor of Industrial Relations
Ph.D. Chicago 1939
Labor economics, industrial relations

Paul Pigors, Professor of Industrial Relations
Ph.D. Harvard 1927
Personnel administration, industrial relations

Paul N. Rosenstein-Rodan, Professor of Economics
Dr.Rer.Pol. Vienna 1925
Economic development

Walt W. Rostow, Professor of Economic History
Ph.D. Yale 1940
Economic history, economic growth

Paul A. Samuelson, Professor of Economics
Ph.D. Harvard 1941
Price and allocation theory, income analysis, monetary theory and policy

Abraham J. Siegel, Associate Professor of Industrial Relations
M.A. Columbia 1949
Labor economics, industrial relations

Robert M. Solow, Professor of Economics
Ph.D. Harvard 1951
Price and allocation theory, income analysis, econometrics

 

Graduate Subjects

Price and allocation theory

14.121, 122 Economic Analysis
14.123 Advanced Economic Theory
14.132 Schools of Economic Thought
14.151 Mathematical Approach to Economics

 

Income analysis

14.451 Theory of Income and Employment
14.452 Economic Growth and Fluctuations

 

Economic history and economic development

14.161,162 Economic History
14.171 Theory of Economic Growth
14.172 Research Seminar in Economic Development
14.182 Capitalism, Socialism, and Growth

 

Economics of industry

14.271 Problems in Industrial Economics
14.272 Government Regulation of Industry

 

Statistics and econometrics

14.371,372 Statistical Theory
14.374 Design and Analysis of Scientific Experiments
14.381 Statistical Method
14.382 Economic Statistics
14.391 Research Seminar in Economics
15.032 Sampling of Human Populations1

 

Monetary and fiscal economics

14.461,462 Monetary Economics
14.471 Fiscal Economics
14.472 Seminar in Fiscal and Monetary Policy

 

International economics

14.581,582 International Economics
14.584 Seminar in International Economic Theory

 

Industrial relations

14.671 Problems in Labor Economics
14.672 Public Policy on Labor Relations
14.674 The Labor Movement: Theories and Histories
14.681,14.682 Seminar in Personnel Administration
14.691,692 Research Seminar in Industrial Relations
14.693 Collective Bargaining and Union-Management Cooperation
14.694 Seminar in Union-Management Cooperation

1School of Industrial Management

 

[Production Credits]

Editorial service by the M.I.T. Office of Publications. Design by Brigitte Hanf. Typesetting by the Lew A. Cummings Company, Inc., Manchester, New Hampshire, and The Composing Room, Inc., New York. Production by the Lew A. Cummings Company, Inc. January, 1961.

 

Source: MIT Archives, Department of Economics Records, Box 2, Folder “Department Brochures”.

Image Source: MIT beaver mascot, Tim,  from Technology Review in 1914.

Categories
Chicago Funny Business M.I.T.

M.I.T. Christmas skit “God and Keynes at M.I.T.”, 1951

 

The title of the Christmas skit presented by the Graduate Economic Association players at MI.T. in December 1951 , “God and Keynes at M.I.T”, is a clear reference to the political screed, God and Man at Yale (1951), by the young and future conservative pundit, William F. Buckley, Jr. This is one of many MIT skits found in the papers of Robert M. Solow and has been graciously shared for ERVM transcription by Roger E. Backhouse of, most recently, Becoming Samuelson, 1915-1948 fame.

One of the signs you are dealing with truly academic humor is the use of footnotes to provide proper attribution. In particular we find here seven items borrowed (and sometimes modified) from the University of Chicago Political Economy Club repertoire. Thus we see not only were some of the Greatest-Hits of Chicago skit humor “remastered” in the Windy City but also that the G.E.A. of M.I.T. was not above performing “covers” of Freshwater Hits. ERVM has already transcribed a few of these and for the sake of completeness will soon complete this list with the Chicago originals:

There is still plenty of original material in the following skit, and the few modifications worth noting include a key substitution of Keynes (MIT) for Marshall (Chicago)  and another substitution of “psychology and sociology” (MIT) for “Macroeconomics and Probability” (Chicago).

________________________

THE GRADUATE ECONOMICS ASSOCIATION
present
The G. E. A. Players
in
GOD AND KEYNES AT M. I. T.
15 December 1951

*Items so marked are modified versions borrowed from the University of Chicago, Political Economy Club.

 

 

PROLOGUE

(the scene is set to reveal the young college graduate relaxing in his home. He has made application to M.I.T. for entry to Course XIV. We hear the door-bell ring, and the letter arrives. He reads:)

An economics department great in dignity
In fairest Cambridge, where we lay our scene
Offers to disturb you, from present peace
To come to our proximity.

From forth of this great and new transition
A host of new subjects will take their position;
Econometrics, propensities, and laboristic relations;
Matrices, consumption, and similar sensations.

And if you will survive the economic pains
We’ll make of you another John Maynard Keynes.
So won’t you please say that you will come and stay;
Let me know real soon, signed sincerely, C. P. K.

(the student arrives at Tech, finds the library, and enters the elevator. On the way up to the third floor he hears:)

 

FIRST EPISTLE UNTO NEW STUDENTS*

  1. To all who enter through the Gate of Admissions unto the sanctity of the Department, heed ye well one who is wiser and older than thou. For verily I have dwelt in the land of Keynes for many years, and have felt the curse of Generals on my brain.
  2. Beware the courses called 121 and 122, for they will tax thee sorely. They have been devised that the supply may be known from the demand.
  3. Present thyself upon the appointed hour, lest the social cost exceed the private gain and the wrath of the Master fall upon thee mightily.
  4. Shun thou the geometer, for he seeks to seduce thee with curves. His siren song is pleasant but he lacketh rigor.
  5. Shun thou also the temple of the twin gods, psychology and sociology, for therein dwell the Philistines who worship not the calculus. There wilt thou be set upon with all manner of strange things and thou shalt feel the lash of the complex verbage, and thy head shall whirl with cultural patterns and institutional mores.
  6. Treasure thy Keynes, for verily all manner of mysteries are set down therein. Read it well and carefully, but say not that thou hast understood.
  7. Take to thine own bosom the demand curve lest it desert thee in thine hour of need.
  8. Attend well the lectures called innovation, for there if thou learnest nothing else, shalt thou learn at least one thing and it shall be a contribution to thy general education.
  9. Shun thou the industrial economist when he is at his data, for he loveth them dearly and will defend them as a lioness her cubs.
  10. Beware also the statistician who will leave the witless with a pair of dice.
  11. Shun the welfare economist, for he loveth mightily to stick out his neck and will teach thee his evil ways.
  12. Shun thou the coffee hour, but study diligently in Dewey lest thou and thy end thy days in Course XV.
  13. There is a time to speak and a time to be silent. Be thou silent in the presence of the Master, for he shall reveal to thee the secrets of Keynes and there shalt thou solve the riddle of the Sphinx.

 

(the student steps out of the elevator into the third floor hall. He sees before him many doors, all with different names on them. He decides to investigate each one. First, he comes to:)

“John Maynard Keynes”

(he knocks. The door opens, and out steps an angel, wings, white sheet, and all. The angel says:)

‘He ain’t here; but you’ll meet him in the long run!’

(on to the next door:)

“Paul A. Samuelson”

(the door opens, and the chorus sings:)

THE KEYNESIAN SONG*
(to the tune “They Call me Little Buttercup”)

They call me a Keynesian, a Keynesian economist
That I can never deny
For I am a heretic, a classicist critic—
Bold little Keynesian, I.

I’ve equations and functions, and marginal assumptions
All here in my little kit bag.
I’ve tricky proposals for income disposals
All lest the economy sag.

To deficit spending and government lending
I give a hearty “Huzzah”.
I distrust automaticity despite its simplicity—
I doubt it would work at all.

For I am a Keynesian, a Keynesian economist
That I can never deny
For I’m a heretic, a classical critic—
Bold little Keynesian, I.

When faced with deflation or misallocation
I feel that the former is worse
I abominate waste with Ricardian distaste
But first things always come first.

And yet they deplore me, criticize and abhor me
For I am the standard straw man
But blows I don’t heed—Oh, I’ll stick to my credo
That a plan is a plan is a plan.

For I am a Keynesian, a Keynesian economist
That I can never deny
For I’m a heretic, a classical critic—
Bold little Keynesian, I.

 

“Robert Solow”

(scene, his classroom, where the students are singing:)

 

WE MUST BE RIGOROUS*
(to the tune of “The American Patrol”)

We must be rigorous,
We must be rigorous,
We must fulfill our role;
If we hesitate
Or equivocate,
We won’t achieve our goal.
We must investigate
Our system, complicated
To make our models whole;
Econometrics brings about
Statistical control.

Our esoteric seminars
Bring statisticians by the score.
But try to find economists
Who don’t think algebra a chore.
O, we must urge them all emphatically
To become inclined mathematically
So that all that we’ve developed, may
Someday be applied.

(repeat first 11 lines)

 

 

“Charles P. Kindleberger”

(the door opens, and we hear a voice say:)

Intuition is the basis
on which decisions should be made;
These are really the foundations
On which economics has been laid.

All that’s mathematical
Definitely is tabled;
Even the little diagrams
Never have been labeled.

Be careful, however
That you never neglect
The varied use
Of the Kindleberger effect.

Art or skill
or merely a quirk
This man’s intuition
Does the work.

 

 

“Robert L. Bishop”

(the door opens, and we find snow falling. The chorus is on a toboggan, singing:)

(to the tune of Jingle Bells)*

Maximize, maximize, that’s the crucial key;
Allocate resources by their productivity.
Equalize V.M.P.’s with their prices, and
Your production function is the finest in the land.

 

(voice) In the course of industrialization men have observed the alternating rises and falls of economic activity. And, lo, see what befell us:

“Walt W. Rostow”

(the voice continues:)

To shoot, or overshoot, ah, there’s the cycle;
Whether ‘tis nobler from underinvestment to suffer
Than to prolong the period of gestation
And, by consumption end it?

To history! No more of economics; and by the use of it
To end the confusion and million little theories
That economics left us;
That’s the solution we plan to introduce.

 

“E. Cary Brown”
(to the tune of “Deep in the Heart of Texas”)

(chorus)

To fill the gap
On the Keynesian map
We must again raise taxes;
The prices rise
If we don’t equalize
Savings, investment and taxes.

(solo)

Income grows
In ever rising flows
We must again raise taxes;
In government spends
There seem no ends
Up must go the taxes.

(solo)

dC/dY
Is all awry
We must raise those taxes
The propensity
It’s a calamity
Up must go those taxes.

(chorus)

The interest rate
Is out of date
So we must raise those taxes;
Though bonds recede
We must proceed
To raise again those taxes.

(solo)

The crystal balls
In the third floor halls
Say raise those taxes;
Or you will fret
And long regret
If you don’t raise those taxes.

(solo: and how!)

Flexibility
Cries the C.E.D.
Boys, raise those taxes
Says the N.A.M.
It’s all a sham
Don’t raise those taxes

(chorus)

But God and Keynes
Have the true refrains
Up must go the taxes;
At M.I.T.
We all agree
More savings and more taxes.

(by now, our student has traveled one-half the length of the hall. He approaches the other half, where a voice speaks:)

 

Friend; first year man; lend me your ear.
I come to convince you that industrial relations
Occupies a so much higher station
That economics—while ’t is good and fine
Must of necessity bow under our sign.
The evil that me do lives after them;
The good is oft interred within their books;
So let it be with economics.

We offer to show you the extent of cooperation
Between management and labor in every relation,
And prove to you that what’er your belief
Our unique methods will give either side full relief.

Economists, you know, often speak of productivity;
But that’s a matter of total relativity
Since our writers—Shultz, Myers, Coleman and Brown
Are the most productive in a many a college town.

 

“Charlie Myers”

(the door opens, and we see Myers writing vigorously and adding stacks of manuscripts to already huge piles labeled “To Prentice Hall,” “To McGraw-Hill,” and “Rejects—to Technology Press.” Secretary enters:)

Secretary: “Prof. Myers, here’s that book you asked me to write for you.”

Myers: “Good; don’t forget to start on that other one for me.”

(enter George Shultz carrying a manuscript)

Myers: “Hello, George. I see we’ve written another book. Mind if I look at it?”

Shultz: “Not at all, Charlie. I’ve already begun on the other one for us. You know, though, I think we’re getting a bit too abstract. We ought to go down to a level where it’s good and dirty.”

Myers: “In that case, let’s call in Joe Scanlon. Hey, Joe. Come here.”

(the chorus enters, dressed as bums; they sing:)

THE JOE SCANLON SONG
(to the tune of “Union Maid”)

There once was a bright young man
Who thought he had a plan
He studied cost
And jobs he lost
His name is Joe Scanlan

He soon met a man named Phil
Whose work gave him a thrill
He organized and compromised
He always fought up-hill.

This made of him a wreck
And so he came to Tech.
He sells his plan
To all the clan;
You ought to see his check.

CHORUS:
O you can’t scare us, we’re sticking with Scanlon,
Sticking with Scanlon, sticking with Scanlon;
Oh you can’t scare us, we’re sticking with Scanlon,
Sticking with Scanlon, until we die.

 

When the bosses have no dough
They always call for Joe;
They shed their tears
And buy him beers
And up their profits go—

(repeat CHORUS)

 

(as the final chorus ends, the door opens, and we see a body on the table)

Bishop: “What’s the matter with him, Morrie Adelman?”

Adelman: “He’s just been brought in; he’s suffering from a severe case of elephantiasis.”

Bishop: “Oh, don’t worry; I’ve got a classical solution. It contains some of Euler’s serum.” (pull up a jug so labeled and apply to patient’s arm)

Adelman: “Well, what do you expect that to accomplish?”

Bishop: “It’ll create perfect competition among the disease germs. What could be better?”

Adelman: (pause) “Well, I don’t see him recovering.”

Bishop: “But it’s not a pure case. Perhaps we should call in Dr. D. V. Brown. He’s had medical experience. (enter D.V.B.)

Brown: “Hi-ja.” (looks at body, and shows surprise) “My goodness, Charlie! I always knew he’s work too hard.” (looks at body more closely) “Looks to me like an impure case of oligopoly.”

Adelman: “O-o-o-oh! Let me see!” (goes over to feel arm) “No, there’s no concentration here. But even if there were, there’s really no harm in it.”

Brown: “Well, I’d like to stay, but I have to dash off to a court case.”

 

COURT SCENE

Judge: “The court is now in session. Bring in the first case.”

Prosecutor: “Your honor, this man is accused of attempting to overthrow the neo-classical Chicago School.”

Judge: “What’s your name?”

Coleman: “Sir, my name is Jack Coleman.”

Judge: “Prosecutor, define more explicitly what the charge is against this man.”

Prosecutor: “This man is presently collaborating with a well-known group of collectivists.”

Judge: “What proof have you of this?”

Prosecutor: “I have here my star witness.”

Judge: “What is your name?”

Buckley: “Your honor, sir, my name is Ludwig von Buckley.”

Judge: “Speak.”

Buckley: “I have here a book written by Paul A. Samuelson, and it says here on page.–., Oh, well, let’s not bother with the page number now. It says: “…know…conclusively…that…Karl Marx…is…(turn pages back towards front)…correct.”

Judge: “Speak no more. Any man collaborating with the author of such a book must be guilty of attempting to overthrow the Chicago School. I hereby sentence you to six months of solitary confinement, with a copy of Hazlitt’s “Economics in One Lesson.” Next case.”

(Coleman leaves; enter Herb Shepard)

Prosecutor: “Your honor, this man is accused of playing marbles with the fabulous Alex Bavelas.”

Judge: “What is your name?” (say it aggressively)

Shepard: “Say, you’re unusually aggressive today. Has your wife stopped beating you? How’s your libido?”

Judge: “Now that you mention it, I have been feeling rather despondent.”

Shepard: “Judge, I’m a Freud…you’re tending toward a psycho-social orientation that no longer promotes an optimization of gratification.”

Judge: “Noooooo—I’m too JUNG to die!….But what am I saying! Herbert Shepard, for this circumlocutionist behavior, I hereby sentence you to the marble pits in ex-communication.”

 

(the student next comes to a door marked “reserved for Chicago U. delegates to the A.E.A. Convention.” He knocks, the door opens, and he hears:)

 

HIS RULES GO MARCHING ON*
(to the tune of the Battle Hymn of Republic)

If you want to pass your prelims
You must listen now to me;
You must learn your catechism
If you want to get your ‘B’
They have flunked the finest people
The department ever had
And they never said ‘too bad.’

CHORUS:

Stick, stick, stick with Henry Simons;
Henry is the man to see you through;
He’s the most consistent [man]
With an economic plan;
His rules go marching on.

 

He would nationalize the railroads,
He would atomize the firm,
He would then repeal the tariff
And the “E” bonds he would burn;
He would cleanse the banking system
Of the Federal Reserve;
His rules go marching on.

[Repeat] CHORUS:

He is the man who’d fix up
The progressive income tax;
He would fill in every item that
The present structure lacks;
He’d repeal the excise levies
And forget the margarine tax;
His rules go marching on.

[Repeat] CHORUS:

 

(by now the student will have reached the end of the hall; but questions linger in his mind. He wonders how the student takes all this. And as if in answer, he hears this song between students and faculty:* (to the tune of the ‘Sergeant’s Song’ from the Pirate[s] of Penzance)

Grad Students:

From nine around to nine—Tarantara! tarantara!
We remain in that salt mine—Tarantara!
-Our eyes are growing dim–Tarantara! tarantara!
Our hair is getting thin—Tarantara!
As we while away our youth—Tarantara! tarantara!
In sedate pursuit of Truth—Tarantara!!
Searching stacks and aching backs,
Third degree for a PhD—Tarantara! tarantara! tarantara!

 

Faculty: (to the tune of “Mabel’s Song” from the Pirate[s] of Penzance)

Go, you students, you’ll not be sorry.
You’ll contribute to MY great story.
You shall live in footnote glory.
Go to immortality!

Go to work and hold off suicide,
For if your work with our needs coincide,
Our reluctance to grant degrees we’ll override.
Go, you heroes, go and work!

 

(finally, as our student reaches the end of his journey, he meet the one ‘older and wiser than thou’, and listens as he tells of the ‘impending doom’.)

Twas the night before Orals
When all through the room
A feeling forecast
The impending doom.
The facts were placed
In each head with care
In hopes that when needed
They’d surely be there.
The victims then nestled
All snug in their beds
While visions of cost curves
Danced in their heads.
I soon fell asleep
And began to dream
I sat in a room
All filled with steam.
When out in the yard
There arose such a clatter
I sprang from the chair
To see what was the matter.
Over to the window
I flew like a flash
Tore open the shutters
And threw up the sash.
When what to my wondering
Eyes there appears
A miniature sleigh
And eight tiny examineers.
Instead of the four
They usually required
They sent me four more
If the others got tired.
As I drew in my head
And was turning around
In through the window
They came with a bound.
They were dressed all in black
From their head to the toe;
Whose funeral, I asked,
Someone I know?
A wink of their eyes,
A twist of each head
Soon gave me to know
I had plenty to dread.
They spoke not a word
But went straight to their work
Of filling the blackboards
Then turned to the jerk.
The questions commenced
Like machine gun fire;
I couldn’t keep straight
The seller from buyer.
Now sir, please listen
One of them said
Try to imagine
All this in your head.
Nansen and Johansen
Have only one sled;
They’re at the North pole
And have not bread.
Suddenly there appears
A giant Tartar
Coming from Siberia
Looking to barter.
They can bake some bread
At increasing cost
Yet without a compass
They’ll certainly be lost.
He has a compass
And they have bread
And without exchange
They all will be dead.
They started to bargain
Until he did tell you
That the Russians decided
The ruble to devalue.
Only Sterling is recognized,
So they start to bake
Instead of the bread
A large pound cake.
Then suddenly Nansen
Thought to remember
That neither of them
Was a union member.
Closed shops were enforceable
As a matter of fact
For this was before
The Taft-Hartley Act.
They went ahead anyway,
They didn’t give a hoot;
It was so cold
They needed a union suit.
Before they acted
Or did anything drastic
They examined their demand curve
To see if it was elastic.
Their cost curve was unknown–
It had never been seen;
How lucky they were
That Nansen was really Joel Dean.
Their consumption function told them
Just how to behave;
They knew what to consume
And how much to save.
Please consider the theories
of Tibor Scitovsky
And the two fisted cowboy
two-gun Baranowsky.
If you remember these facts
And keep them in mind,
The right answer, I know
You certainly should find.
I shivered and shook,
In the chair I did writhe;
Now the question, they said
Who was Adam Smythe?
The leader then yelled
For a decision it’s time;
This man has suffered,
He has paid for his crime.
And laying a finger
Aside of his nose
Out of the window
All eight of them goes.
It was the leader then
That I heard exclaim
As he shouted and whistled,
And called them by name:
Now Myers, now Bishop
Now Shultz and C.P.K.
On Coleman, on Solow,
Let’s now dash and dash away.
They sprang to their sleigh
And away they flew
Like they were speeding
To another rendezvous.
Although some details
Of this horrible nightmare
Still seem a bit hazy
I certainly would swear,
Before I awoke
I heard them say
Merry Christmas to all,
And to all a good day.

 

EPILOGUE

As disproved by classical economics
All good things much reach an end;
And so we must leave our attempt at comics,
Hoping we’ve pleased both foe and friend.

‘Tis true enough that our little parody
Has given economics unusual clarity,
And that our writers if circumstances permit it
Will prefer to have their names omitted.

So then, since ours must be the last say,
a real Merry Christmas from the G.E.A.

 

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Robert M. Solow Papers, Box 83, Folders “Economic Skit Parties”.

Image: Cover art from “God and Keynes at M.I.T.” December 15, 1951. Ibid.

 

Categories
Chicago Economists Harvard Yale

Harvard. Mason, Domar and Samuelson at Metzler Memorial Service, 1980

 

These memorial remarks for Lloyd Metzler come from Evsey Domar’s papers. Edward S. Mason and Evsey D. Domar’s remarks have been transcribed in full. I have only provided excerpts of those by Paul Samuelson that were published later in Vol. V of his Collected Scientific Papers. The common denominator of all three remembrances is that Metzler was an outlier among economists both with respect to his analytical abilities and contributions to economics as well with respect to his uncommon utter decency. It appears even back then, nice guys in economics attracted as much attention as an albino moose today. Samuelson’s speculative remark regarding Metzler’s assignment to the “Burbank ghetto” is priceless as is his recounting of Keynes’ less than sage advice to Sidney Alexander.

___________________

LLOYD A. METZLER
1913-1980
by Edward S. Mason

We are here to celebrate the life of Lloyd Metzler who gave comfort and pleasure not only to his family but to a host of friends. In the six short years he was at Harvard, he made a name for himself as a scholar of promise and a man to whom others turned for help and companionship.

Lloyd took his first degree at the University of Kansas and studied under a man who was my own teacher and who taught John Lintner and a number of others who later came to Harvard. I’d like to say a word about this man, John Ise, who left his imprint on Lloyd, on me, and on all those who passed through his hands. Ise was one of five children who grew up on the Kansas prairies just after the Sod House days that he later wrote about. All of these children went through the University and all made their mark in life. He was a strong man who fought for his unpopular opinions and encouraged his students to strike out for themselves. I know he impressed Lloyd as much as he did me.

After teaching two years at Kansas, Lloyd came to the Graduate School at Harvard in 1936. It was an interesting period in Cambridge and in the Department of Economics. The old guard was leaving the Department and a new crew coming in. Taussig, Carver, and Bullock retired; Ripley died; and Gay left for the Huntington library. These were the stalwarts who had dominated the Department since 1900. Early in the 1930s, Schumpeter, Leontief, and Haberler joined the Department and, later, Hansen, Schlichter, and Black. They were a vigorous crew. Lloyd early discovered his major interest in international trade and worked, in particular, with Hansen and Haberler. Harvard economics was also fortunate in attracting during that period a number of exceptional graduate students, a number of whom are here with us today. I am sure that Lloyd learned as much from them as from his teachers and, in the process, gave as much as he took.

The 1930s were also a period of upheaval in the country and in the University. In some respects it resembled the late 1960s though the protagonists and antagonists were not as strident or violent. It was a period when new ideas percolated the environment and questions of public policy were much to the fore. The influence of Keynes dominated the last few years of the decade, and Lloyd soon found himself in the middle of Keynesian controversies.

After leaving Harvard in 1942, he spent a year as a Guggenheim Fellow and then joined the Office of Strategic Services for a year. Although OSS had a good stable of economists, I am sure that he felt more at home at the Federal Reserve Board where he served from 1944 to 1946. After that a brief period at Yale, and then the University of Chicago where he was a distinguished member of the Economics Department for the rest of his life.

I leave it to others to comment on his considerable scholarly accomplishments, but want to say something about how Lloyd impressed me as a young man. He was obviously much more than an economist, with deep interests in music and literature. He was a cultivated man who in some respects reminded me of Allyn Young who also had a great interest in music and who, for a brief moment in the 1920s, shed his light on Harvard. Young looked more like a poet than an economist though I admit it is difficult for me to describe just what an economist is supposed to look like. Lloyd was a sensitive gentleman with a gift for friendship. Everyone who knew him like him and all of us join Edith in deeply mourning his departure.

 

ON LLOYD METZLER
by Evsey D. Domar

Last Sunday, The New York Times reviewed another book on President Truman. He is a gold mine for historians. A man of modest ability, yet a good president. Well, perhaps not quite so good… On the other hand, by comparison with our presidents in the recent past and, may I add, expected in the near future, a giant indeed… Many contradictions in his character and performance and so on. Could you find a better man to write about?

Lloyd Metzler does not offer such wonderful opportunities. As I look back over nearly forty years since I first met him, I don’t find contradictions either in his character nor in his actions; what stands out is a man of rare intellectual ability, remarkable modesty and much kindness.

Over my lifetime I have known a number of very bright people, including some economists; and a number of very modest and kind people, also including some economists. But I have never met one who could excel Lloyd in the combination of ability, modesty and kindness.

This was true at Harvard where he was finishing his thesis when I first met him in 194’ [sic]. If a visitor asked then, “Who is your brightest graduate student?” the answer, without any hesitation was “Lloyd Metzler, of course.” If the question was, “Who is your nicest graduate student?” the answer was once again, “Lloyd, of course.” Ant the same was true at the Federal Reserve where he spent a couple of years during the War. It was true in his office, in the cafeteria, in the afternoon math class which he gave for the staff, and outside of that marble building which has lately appeared several times on TV. (Hard to believe now that in those days the interest rate of government securities was something like 2½ per cent.)

As Solzhenitsyn said, he “was the one righteous person without whom, as the saying goes, no city can stand. Neither can the whole world.”

 

LLOYD METZLER
(April 3, 1913—October 26, 1980)
by Paul A. Samuelson

[Excerpts]

That we should hold this memorial service in the Harvard Yard is fitting. Widener Library was Lloyd’s first stamping grounds after he came to Harvard in 1937 from Kansas. Later, when the Littauer building was new, he switched his battleground to the other side of where we now meet. In my mind’s eye, I can still see Lloyd Metzler walking across the Harvard Yard, with his little dachshund in tow, engaged in animated badinage with Bob Bishop or Dan Vandermeulen. A young resident of Winthrop House, destined to be president of the United States [John F. Kennedy], used to be disturbed in his studies by our revels in Lloyd’s Winthrop House tutorial suite.

…To be near K.U., the family finally moved to Lawrence, Kansas. There the spellbinder populist, John Ise, rescued Lloyd from the swamp of the business school. Just as Ise had done with Ed Mason, and as he was to do with John Lintner, Challis Hall, and a host of other sons of the middle border, Ise sent Metzler on to his old graduate student at Harvard.

Harold Hitchings Burbank, noting the Germanic “z” in Lloyd’s name and recognizing his egregious talent, probably mistook him for a Jew…Like other able people Burbank didn’t favor, Lloyd was put in the galleys of Frickey and Crum, to serve as assistant in the undergraduate courses in statistics and accounting. Since I never had that honor, I can with good grace report that the cream of the graduate school, those who have won the Wells Prizes and top honors of our profession, all came from this Burbank ghetto.

…What is in order is to speak of Wassily Leontief and E.B. Wilson We few mathematical economists at Harvard were blessed by these great teachers…Wilson spotted Metzler’s genius. One of President Conant’s few stupid decisions was to retire Wilson at the earliest possible age, and this in a period of teacher shortages, thereby depriving the post-Metzler generations of the consumers’ surplus that Metzler, I, Bergson, Tsuru, Alexander, and some other happy few enjoyed.

That, however , was par for the critics of mathematical economics. In the year that Metzler came to Harvard, Sidney Alexander was Keynes’s last tutee at Cambridge University. Keynes seriously advised Alexander not to waste his time with mathematical economics…

…All in all, Lloyd Metzler added enormously to economic science. And that sense of humor and sweet nature lives on in our happy memories.

Note: Samuelson’s complete remarks at the memorial service were published in The Collected Scientific Papers of Paul A. Samuelson, Vol. V (Kate Crowley, ed.) pp. 827-830. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1986.

 

Source: Duke University. Rubenstein Library. Papers of Evsey Domar, Box 6, Folder “Correspondence: Lloyd Metzler etc.”

Image Source: “Lloyd A. Metzler/Fellow: Awarded 1942/Field of Study: Economics”John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation. Webpage .

Categories
Economists Funny Business M.I.T.

M.I.T. Analysis in Wonderland. Graduate Student Skit, 1975

 

The annual skit party was a huge social event in the economics department at MIT in the 1970s and presumably before and after.  Each of the cohorts was expected to write and perform its own skit in which economics and economics professors were the principal targets. Faculty written skits were often a part of the festivities. Here in this posting for the historical record, a parody of Alice in Wonderland set in the Wonderland Institute of Technology in 1975 written by the first-year class of 1974-75. But first I provide a list of my classmates with links to some biographical information where I was able to find something…whatever happened to Paul Krugman? Not everybody participated in the preparation and performance so there remains a presumption of comic innocence for the majority of the following.

In 1978 many of this cohort were involved in Casablank, a parody of the movie Casablanca. That script has been transcribed and posted at the highlighted link.

__________________

First Year Economics Graduate Students, 1974-75
M.I.T. (Spring 1975)

Abel, Andrew B.
Aspe, Pedro A.
Begg, David K. H.
Beleza, Luis Miguel C. P.
Bookstaber, Richard M.
Collier, Irwin L., Jr.
Datcher, Linda P.
Daula, Thomas V.
Desormeaux, Jorge J.
Donnelly, John F.
Duarte, Virgulino
Klorza, Santiago C.
Feiger, Margaret C.
Frankel, Jeffrey A.
Geehan, Randall R.
Giavazzi, Francesco
Halpern, Janice D.[sic, H.?]
Helms, L. Jay
Hill, Raymond D.
Krasker, William S.
Krugman, Paul R.
Malveaux, Julianne M.
Mincy, Ronald B.
Mooney, Patricia D.
Mork, Knut A.
Nagatani, Hiroaki
Neuer, Margaret R.
Smith, David A. [Alton]
Startz, Richard
Winicker, Mary K.

Source:  M.I.T. Archives. MIT Department of Economics Records, Box 1, Folder “Women & Minorities”.

__________________

While transcribing this skit from my own days as a graduate student, I discovered how much I had indeed forgotten. The mapping of many a character to the corresponding faculty member was no longer obvious to me. I have added a listing of  Dramatis Personae with annotations based on the combined incomplete memories of myself,  Jeff Frankel, Dick Startz, Andy Abel, Ray Hill and Jay Helms. Perhaps some long-lost member of the troupe will stumble across this page and help me fill in the blanks, especially with respect to casting (20 characters!). 

______________________

ANALYSIS IN WONDERLAND

Composed and performed by the first-year economics graduate students at M.I.T.
Second term, 1974-75

 

DRAMATIS PERSONAE

Narrator: played by Richard Bookstaber
Alice (Representative Graduate Student): played by Margaret (née Agnew) Feiger
Advisor (presumably the actual first-year advisor, Peter Diamond): actor unknown
Cheshire Cat (Jagdish Bhagwati): actor unknown
Micro: (Hal Varian?): actor unknown
Macro: (Stanley Fischer?): actor unknown
Quick & Dirty (Martin Weitzman): actor unknown
Palmer (Palmer, an actual Sloan School graduate student): actor unknown
Dormouse (Evsey Domar?): actor unknown
Mad Hatter (Charles Kindleberger): played by Jeffrey Frankel
March Hare (Robert Engle?): actor unknown
Tweedledee (Jerry Hausman):  possibly played by Jay Helms
Tweedledum (Robert Hall): possibly played by Bud Collier
Knave of Hearts (Franco Modigliani): actor unknown
Knave of Clubs (Arthur Burns): actor unknown
Knave of Spades (William McChesney Martin): actor unknown
Knave Alan (Allan Greenspan): actor unknown
King (President Gerald Ford): actor unknown
Joker (Paul Samuelson): possibly played by Ray Hill
White Rabbit (Robert Bishop?): actor unknown

ACT I

Narrator: The first year class presents…

Analysis in Wonderland, a tragicomedy in four unnatural acts. Any resemblance to faculty members living or otherwise should be inferred from the initials worn by the characters.

Act I, Alice enters Wonderland and meets the Cheshire cat.
(Alice is sitting at a table reading Samuelson’s Economics.)
Narrator: One day Alice was reading a book, but she was getting very bored, for the book had no conversations or jokes in it.
Alice: And what is the use of a book without conversations or jokes?
Narrator: And so she began to drift off. And eventually she noticed that there was someone on the other side of the desk…
Advisor: Hi! Welcome to the Wonderland Institute of Technology. You must be a first year graduate student. I’m your first year advisor, and it’s my job to talk to you and give you a feeling that someone cares about you personally.

Now, let me see your schedule (grabs book). Well, uh, (looks at book then says with emphasis) Paul, this schedule looks fine to me (signs it) and remember to turn in your roll cards on the first day of each class.

(Through all this Alice keeps going “uh” and “but”…but can’t manage to say anything)

Remember that if you have any questions or problems, just come in and talk to me, I have plenty of time. Excuse me!

(The advisor gets up and runs out. Alice runs after, then comes back)
Alice: What a strange place! But where should I go from here? Why there’s a Cheshire Cat. (Enter Cheshire cat) Excuse me, sir, but can you tell me where I ought to go from here?
Cheshire Cat: Why, I’m wery [sic] glad you asked me that. You should go to the optimal point, of course.
Alice: But how long will that take me?
Cheshire Cat: I can’t tell you that, listen to this. (Turns on radio, which produces static. Turns it off.) You see! Our economic theories are all static.
Alice: I would like to see some faculty.
Cheshire Cat: Well, you could go to Harward [sic], but it’s wery rare that anyone sees any faculty there. Or you could stay here, but everyone here has completely lost their faculties. They’re all mad, you know.
Alice: But I don’t want to go among mad people.
Cheshire Cat: Oh, you can’t help that; we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.
Alice: How do you know I’m mad?
Cheshire Cat: Well, a physicist’s not mad, you grant that? Now, a physicist starts with facts and tries to find theories that fit them. I start with theories and don’t bother with facts. Therefore I’m mad. Yes?
Alice: But what are your theories about?
Cheshire Cat: Do they have to be about anything?
Alice: Well, I’ve often seen a subject without a theory, but a theory without a subject? It’s the most curious thing I ever saw in all my life!

(Alice suddenly starts)
Cheshire Cat: Don’t worry, it’s just the inwisible hand.
(Enter two characters with paper hats (?) on which are cross diagrams. One has a potato chip taped to his shoulder.)
Cheshire Cat: They’re Mike and Mac Ro
Micro: Someone must stop him! It’s shameful! Look at that silly diagram he’s wearing! It’s a disgrace to the profession.
Macro: It’s a perfectly good diagram. Not like that ridiculous diagram you’re wearing!
Alice: But the diagrams look just the same.
Cheshire Cat: Shhh! You’ll only get them more upset.
Alice: Why don’t you try to talk your differences over?
Micro: Well, we microeconomists believe in logic, so I’m willing to reason it out.
Macro: You can’t expect me to be reasonable. Can’t you see I’ve got a chip on my shoulder?
Alice: Why, yes—it’s a potato chip in fact.
Macro: I wear it in honor of our founder, Cain’s. So prepare to defend yourself.
Micro: I warn you, I’m a master of the Marshallian arts.
Macro: But I’m armed with the most deadly tool of macroeconomics: (pulls out several pairs of pliers)…Multi-pliers!
Micro: And I have the most dangerous concept of microeconomics. (pulls out a slingshot) Elasticity!
Alice: Oh no, they’re going to have a duel and micro is a semi-strict under dog!

(Mike and Mac turn back to back)
(enter panting, the Quick and Dirty banker, carrying a money bag and a calculator)
Q&D: Wait! You can’t have a duel without a primal.
Alice: Who are you?
Q&D: I’m duh quick and doity bankuh. And by my quick and doity bankuh’s calculation, I find dat what you need is more liquidity which I will now provide.

(out of the moneybag he pulls a waterpistol, shoots everyone, then runs)
Macro: Now we’re all wet. What are we going to do?
Alice: It’s all right, I know just what to do. Here’s the driest thing I know.

(begins reading from Bishop [notes])
Micro: This isn’t getting me dry at all.
Macro: Now there’s only one way to get dry, and this will prove to you that macroeconomics is good for something.
Alice: What are you going to do?
Macro: I’m going to do some hand-waving! Macroeconomists are always drying things out by waving their hands.
Alice: They are?
Macro: Of course! That’s why none of their theories will hold water. Now, watch this! (He begins to draw a diagram)
Alice: What do those lines mean?
Macro: Oh, I don’t know. But they’re pretty good lines, and Lord knows I have the right to a few good lines in this ridiculous skit.
Palmer: Haven’t you got the A line drawn wrong?
Macro: (Going very fast) Well, that line doesn’t really matter. (erases it)
Palmer: But then shouldn’t you erase the k line, too?
Macro: Well, all right (erases).
Palmer: What do X and Y stand for?
Macro: Oh, don’t worry about the axes (erases them). Actually, these are not quite like this anyway. (erases remaining lines) And, as you can see, equilibrium is at the intersection.
Alice: Well, I’ve often seen lines without an intersection, but an intersection without lines? It’s the most curious thing I ever saw in my whole life.
Narrator: You’re repeating yourself, Alice.
Alice: What do you expect, Mel Brooks?
Micro: You think that’s hand-waving! Why, I have seen hand-waving, compared with which that is no better than eternal bliss.
Alice: But what is better than eternal bliss?
Micro: Well, a ham sandwich, for instance.
Alice: But nothing’s better than eternal bliss.
Micro: And a ham sandwich is better than nothing. So, by transitivity, there you are!
Alice: (ignoring Micro as she turns to the Cheshire Cat) Isn’t there anyone here who isn’t mad?
Cheshire Cat: You might try an assistant professor.
Alice: Which one should I try?
Cheshire Cat: It doesn’t matter—pick one at random.
Alice: How do I do that?
Cheshire Cat: Just draw one from an assistant professor urn.
Alice: What’s an assistant professor urn?
Micro, Macro, Cheshire Cat, Narrator (in unison) About eleven thousand a year!
(pause)
Narrator: …and a copy of Bishop’s notes.
Alice: Curiouser and curiouser.
(exeunt all)

 

ACT II

Narrator: Act II. The Mad Boston Tea Party
(Dormouse sleeps throughout. Mad Hatter stuttering throughout; price keeps going up on hat.)
Mad Hatter: What’s your liquidity preference my dear?
Alice: It looks like you have nothing but tea.
Mad Hatter: That is all we have.
Alice: Then why did you ask?
Mad Hatter: Consumer sovereignty. (gives Alice tea) I would like to suggest to you that that will be eight pence (takes shilling from Alice.)
Alice: No cover charge?
Mad Hatter: A gentleman never takes cover, as we say in the old country.
Alice: Hey, I gave you a shilling and you only gave me two pence change back!
Mad Hatter: A gentleman never counts his change.
Hare: Gentleperson!
Alice: This sounds like a liquidity trap to me.
Mad Hatter: Alright, I’ll put it down on the T-account…(gets book)
Alice: There is something floating in my tea.
March Hare: (looking) Exchange rates.
Mad Hatter: … two pence… (fiddling with T-accounts)
Alice: No it’s ice.
Mad Hatter: …under frozen assets.
Hare: Gary Becker! (general laughter)
Mad Hatter: Why is the Poisson distribution like a temperature of 102?
Alice: Well, let’s see… I suppose you would have to integrate e to the…
Mad Hatter: Integration! They only do that in South Boston.
March Hare: No, that’s disintegration.
Alice: I suppose you have to differentiate between…
Mad Hatter: Differentiate? The first derivative is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Alice: I give up, why is the Poisson distribution like a temperature of 102?
Mad Hatter: I haven’t the slightest idea.
Alice: That’s not very funny.
Mad Hatter: Funny?
March Hare: She wants to hear a joke.
Mad Hatter: A joke, a joke!
March Hare: …Fogel and Engerman! (general laughter)
Alice: I’m afraid I don’t get it.
Mad Hatter: Well, you see, certain names are standing jokes around here, like…Walt Whitman Rostow! (laughter)
Alice: Can I try one?
Mad Hatter: Go right ahead.
Alice: Milton Friedman! (silence among the actors who look sour a moment after the audience’s laughter dies down.)
Mad Hatter: Try another one.
Alice: Jay Forrester….(more silence).
Alice: I don’t understand. What’s wrong?
Mad Hatter: Well, some people just can’t tell a joke.
March Hare: Perhaps you’d like to see a proof?
Mad Hatter: A proof! A proof!
March Hare: This is a proof I recited before the Queen of Hearts. (goes to board)

Twiddle Twiddle lambda star
Alpha hat, beta hat times X bar.
Alpha hat, beta hat sigma Xi

One over n, equals mean of Y.
[writes on board:]:
\begin{array}{l}\mathop{{\tilde{\tilde{\lambda }}}}^{*}=\hat{\alpha }+\hat{\beta }\cdot \bar{X}\\=\hat{\alpha }+\hat{\beta }\cdot \sum{{{X}_{i}}}\left( \frac{1}{n} \right)=\bar{Y}\end{array}
Mad Hatter: Time to move on to the next place.
(everybody gets up to move)
Alice: What?! You mean you just move on to the next place without erasing?
March Hare: We don’t have to erase; we just relabel the axes.
Mad Hatter: I always erase twice, once before the period and once afterward. (erases)

(everyone moves down one, and relabels axes and curve)
     
Alice: And I suppose when you use up all the places you just start again at the beginning of the circle?
Mad Hatter: Yes. It’s called recycling.
March Hare: You better wake up the Dormouse.

(Mad Hatter and March Hare exit)
Alice: (To Dormouse) Wake up, wake up. (shakes him)
Dormouse: (waking) Whaaaaat?
Alice: Wake up. It’s over.
Dormouse: (Pause…) Can I Xerox your notes?
Alice: (starts to leave. turns and says) Why is a Poisson distribution like a temperature of 102? (Pause. Alice exits)
Dormouse: (alone) Because it’s not normal.

 

ACT III

Narrator: Act III. Alice meets Tweedledum and Tweedledee, who have a battle.
(Alice enters and sits down. Dum and Dee enter, arm-in-arm, prancing. Dee sits down; Dum goes to the board and begins. Throughout, Dee is frantic, pacing, and talking very fast. Dum is red-faced, slow-talking, constantly looking at the floor; arms folded, with noticeably short pants and a turtleneck.)
Dum: So, to conclude yesterday’s talk, we can see that it’s entirely possible that for the two sub-groups, say, men and women, you could have different parameters in the regression…
Dee: (jumping up to interrupt) I think I can draw a picture that will make that all clear. Wish I had my colored chalk… [draws pictures].
     
…so you see that while the slope in the pooled regression is zero, contrariwise; it’s actually negative for men and positive for women.
Dum: …Sort of, different slopes for different folks, which tells us…
Dee: [interrupting] …and contrariwise, I can clear this up by drawing a picture that would show…[draws picture]
 
Dum: [interrupting]…that there could be kinky behavior in some subgroups….
Dee: Right. (sits down)
Dum: But, as I was going to say, this illustrates the 287th “Iron Law” of econometrics, which states that….
Dee: (again jumping up to interrupt)…Contrariwise,…I think I can make that clear with a picture in four dimensions. Damn, I just wish I had my colored chalk…(draws pictures)
…which shows that…
Dum: (getting very irritated, interrupting) Nohow!

The time has come, the Walras said
to talk of many things,
of matrices and error terms
of cabbages and kings,
and keeping out your pictures
that keep complicating things.
Dee: Contrariwise!

In my way of showing things
I’m better far than you,
Your talk is like an old dead horse–
It’s slow, not unlike glue.
Dum: Now wait a second…
(Dum and Dee break into a general dispute, yelling at one another.)
Dum: ….you’re not consistent…
Dee: …you’re almost surely driving me to the p-limit…
Dum: …you’re a homoscedastic deviate…
(While Tweeledum and Tweedledee continue arguing, the Narrator breaks in…)
Narrator: So Tweedledum and Tweedledee
Agreed to have a fight
For Tweedledum said Tweedledee
Couldn’t prove Gauss-Markov right.
Dum: Of course we must have a fight. What time is it?
Dee: 10:40—We’re late getting started, so we better hurry up.
Dum: Let’s fight ‘till noon, then have lunch.
Narrator: So they agreed to fight and, as Alice watched, they began to see who could prove the theorem better.
(Dum and Dee give lectures simultaneously, beginning and ending at the same time with the same words.)
Dee:

[simultaneously with Dum]

I CLAIM THAT OLS IS BLUE.

Basically, we want to prove that

{{\sum{\left( \mathbf{{X}'Y} \right)}}^{-1}}\mathbf{{Z}'}\beta \le {{\sum{\left( \mathbf{{X}'\tilde{Y}} \right)}}^{-1}}\mathbf{{Z}'}\gamma

Now just take the inverse of the antilog of the Jacobian and delete the fourth row. Let little x be the square root of big X, and let medium-sized x be measured from its mean; substitute back in and we have

{{\sum{\left( \mathbf{{X}'}\left[ \begin{matrix} \mathbf{Y} \\ \mathbf{Z} \\ \end{matrix} \right] \right)}}^{-1}}{\left| J \right|\cdot \Pi \cdot {{R}^{2}}}/{\text{hat size}}\;

which you will recall from 14.381.

Then, as I promised, you can use this by transposing Z and x, deleting R and reversing the inequality…..OH SHIT…I’ve screwed up…Well, just change every medium-sized x in your notes to big X, delete all sigmas, and reverse the third and fourth steps of the proof I gave last week which was right here on the board. Or look in Tahl’s [Theil with an West Virginian accent] book. Everyone should understand this perfectly—and of course the notation is clear. Then, adding the obvious steps we learned in 14.381 to this proof completes the argument. SO OLS IS BLUE, as promised.
Dum:

[simultaneously with Dum]

I CLAIM THAT OLS IS BLUE.

Well….a lot of people go around proving the Gauss-Markov….Theorem….but the literature is full of cases….where what’s done is wrong….Take matrix addition for example….Some people just add element-by-element….while often the more interesting thing to do…..is to use the Choleski factorization of one of the matrices….And recalling that Tweedledum and I are the final arbiters of econometrics at W.I.T. (at least until Fisher gets back off leave) you’d better do it this way, or consider dropping the course. SO OLS IS BLUE, as promised.
Palmer: Shouldn’t you invert that Jacobian before proceeding to expansion in Lambert spaces….
Dee: [interrupting] If it was so, it might be; If it WERE so, it could be; But as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.
Narrator: Alice couldn’t figure out just who had won the fight, although Tweedledee HAD used a lot more words….
[exeunt]

 

ACT IV

Tweedledee: Act Four, “The trahl”.
Narrator: Within a few moments Alice will witness the trial of the Knave of Hearts who is in deep trouble now because the King of Hearts is flying all the way from the Capital of Wonderland to preside at the trial. You are undoubtedly familiar with the Knave of Hearts most important contribution to economic analysis, “A Life-Cycle Built for Two”. But now he has been accused of starting the latest Wonderland inflation and depression—or as they say in the seminar rooms down by the River Chuck—“inflession”. The economic experts of the King—Knave Arthur of Clubs, Knave William of Spades, and Knave Alan of Diamonds—have all convinced him that economic voodoo has been practiced on models on the Wonderland economy in the hallowed halls of W.I.T. Since the King of Hearts has never played with a full-deck in his life, he was easily deceived by these rascals. Fortunately for the Knave of Hearts the Queen was unable to come to the trial due to a prior speaking engagement before the Veterans of Foreign Business Cycles.
(Enter Knaves of C.S. &D. They play “Hail to the Chief” on kazoos for a few bars and end with “Pop goes the weasel.” Then the King enters wearing a helmet and carrying a football. A WIN button is conspicuous. King bends over, hikes the ball to Knave of Clubs. King sits down on throne in middle of stage.)
Knave of Clubs. Where’s the jury?
King of Hearts. (points at the Knaves) You. (Knaves turn around but no one is behind them. King continues…) Yes, you. You are his peers. And for a proper trial before we cut off his grant, we must have a jury of his peers.
Knight of Diamonds. (tossing a coin à la [George] Rath) We know what to do.
(Enter all the other characters from Wonderland, except Joker and reporters)
King: What are the charges?
Knave of Clubs: Eleven dollars a barrel.
White Rabbit: The King of Hearts, he has no smartz
But Unemployment yes.
The Knave of Hearts has played his part
To make inflation worse.
Knaves in the jury-box: Boo, Hiss, Boo!
King: It is a pretty despicable offense isn’t it?
Knave of Spades: Are you kidding? The charges don’t even rhyme.
King: Will the defendant rise?
Knave of Hearts: If I had known you were going to ask me that question I would have built it into my model.
King: I’ll hold you in contempt!
Knave of Hearts: I don’t suppose I’ll become overly fond of you either.
King: Let the jury note the defendant’s behavior.
Knave of Hearts: Which reminds me of my 1944 paper, but that is of course a secondary issue given the gravity of the problems which we now face. While I can’t formally defend the following equation to my own satisfaction, I think that it does make some economic sense. But first I should say that things will be getting much worse before they will get better, I can give you the latest predictions…..
King: (fuming through all of the above) Bind the bearer of bad tidings or he’ll talk us to death…
Knave of Clubs: But what shall we bind him with?
King: Bearer bonds, naturally!
(The Knaves come out of the jury box and use first-aid gauze to tie the knave of Hearts by body and legs & gag him—leaving only one arm free. Knave of Hearts has been talking with his hands throughout his testimony, and he continues gesturing with his free hand while occasional grunts can be heard under his gag.)
King: May it be noted that in the tradition of Wonderland jurisprudence we have left the defendant with one degree of freedom in spite of his lack of respect for this court. Are there any witnesses?
Mad Hatter: I am.
King: Take the stand.
Knave of Clubs (to Mad Hatter): Did the defendant do it?
Mad Hatter: Certainly not.
Knave of Spades: And you witnessed this with your own eyes?
Mad Hatter: And I didn’t hear or smell him do it either.
Knave of Diamonds: But how strong was your prior?
Mad Hatter: Well, I don’t like to boast but when I was a young man working for the OSS during the War, I once spent a week in bed with a….
Knave of Clubs: No, no, no. How much could new data affect your prior beliefs, and if considerably, what was your posterior judgment?
Mad Hatter: I don’t now, that’s a good one. But I’ve got one for you. What weighs 12,000 pounds and has a twice differentiable indifference map over hay and peanuts?
King: That’s irrelevant!
Mad Hatter: That’s right.
King: Give your evidence, or I’ll cut your grant off on the spot!
Mad Hatter: (stutters) I’m a poor man your majesty.
King: You’re a very poor speaker. (knaves laugh) I thought that was a pretty good one too. I’m in the mood for a few laughs (to White Rabbit) Call in the Joker.
White Rabbit: The Joker.
(Enter Joker, attended by secretary, fans seeking autographs, and reporters taking pictures)
Joker: It’s great to be back in Wonderland folks. A funny thing happened on my way…
King: (interrupting) You have been called here to testify. What is the Keynesian viewpoint?
Joker: As Uncle Miltie Friedman would say, only blindmen use Keynes. Hey, that’s a pretty good one. (To secretary) Write that down for my textbook—Better yet, put out a new edition. But, seriously folks just the other day I was leafing through a volume of Ricardo’s letters in the Sraffa collection when I came across a letter from Ricardo to James Mill describing the following encounter between Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo. Ricardo was walking down the street one day when he ran into the good Reverend who was, much to Ricardo’s surprise, sporting a banana in his left ear. Ricardo was surprised because Malthus was always the last of the political economists to adopt a new fashion. Finally Ricardo’s curiosity got the better of him and he asked, “I say Tom, why is that banana in your ear?” Malthus didn’t seem to understand—but that was hardly unusual as Malthus, more often than not, couldn’t understand what his friend was saying. In fact, old Malthus personally thought that Ricardo couldn’t optimize his way out of a paper sack, much less a Lambert space. Finally Malthus said, “I’m sorry Dave, but I can’t hear you, you see, I have this banana in my ear.” (everyone in the courtroom is sleeping) And now….ahem…ahem (everyone wakes up). A few of your favorite impressions: Francois Quesnay! (He covers his face with his hands; removes hands; expression unchanged) Böhm-Bawerk! (same routine)
King: Enough!
Joker: Nassau Senior! (same routine)
King: Take him away. (White rabbit and knaves carry Joker off, still doing impressions. e.g. Stanley Jevons, Joseph Schumpeter, Vilfredo Pareto….)
King: Who is the next witness?
Rabbit: Alice!
Alice: Here! (she goes to the witness stand)
King: What do you know about this business?
Alice: Nothing.
King: If you say anything, I’ll give you part credit. Otherwise….
Alice: But I don’t need part credit!
King: Young lady, I’m growing impatient. Either tell us something about this business or I’ll cut off your grant.
Alice: (crying) But I don’t have a grant.
King: Then why are you so upset, indeed.
Alice: What sort of….(alarm clock goes off in the jury box and the knaves wake up).
Knaves: (in unison) Verdict time!!
Knave of Spades: (To Knave of Diamonds) Do you have the coin?
Knave of Diamonds: Yes I do. (to Spades). You’re innocence, (to Clubs) you’re guilt. Call it innocence. (he tosses the coin high in air)
Alice: What kind of trial is this?
King: Don’t be a stupid child. It’s a Bernoulli trial.
Knave of Spades: Tails.
Knave of Diamonds: Sorry it’s heads. He’s guilty!
Alice: May I see the coin? (it’s tossed to her) This coin has two heads.
King: Did anyone say p equaled one half?
(Lights out. Everyone leaves but Alice. Lights on she has book and wakes up.)
Alice: I’m glad I woke up before I had to take generals. (She leaves)
Audience: (Deafening applause) Bravo. Cheers. Whoopee.

 

Source: Transcribed by Irwin Collier from personal copy.

Categories
Exam Questions M.I.T.

MIT. Microeconomic Core Theory II. Bishop, 1974

_______________________________

“Microeconomic Theory II”, the second of four half-semester core microeconomic theory courses at MIT, was actually the first offered during the academic year 1974-75. It was taught by Professor Robert L. Bishop. In this post we find 29 sample questions for the five sets of topics covered in the courses. Also included are the waiver exam for testing out of the course and the final examination for the students who took the course

The course “text” was the mimeographed manuscript on economic theory written by Bishop that was on closed reserve at Dewey Library and consulted by presumably at least a dozen cohorts over the 1960s (perhaps even earlier) and 1970s. A copy of that manuscript can be found in the Edwin Burmeister papers at Rubenstein Library of Duke University. 

 Two papers (especially the second) by Bishop covering some of the course material are:

Bishop, Robert L. “Duopoly: Collusion or Warfare?” The American Economic Review 50, no. 5 (1960): 933-61.

Bishop, Robert L. “The Effects of Specific and Ad Valorem Taxes.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 82, no. 2 (1968): 198-218.

Core microeconomic theory at MIT in 1974-75:

14.121 (linear models) was taught by Martin Weitzman,
14.123 (duality) was taught by Hal Varian,
14.124 (capital theory, uncertainty and welfare economics) was taught by Paul Samuelson.

_______________________________

 

Topics in 14.122, with Sample Questions

  1. Review of demand and supply, elasticities. Walrasian v. Marshallian stability conditions. Demand and supply as seen by the individual seller or buyer.
    1. What various formulas have been proposed for measuring the arc elasticity between two points on a demand curve, (q1,p1) and (q2,p2)? Discuss the virtues and defects of the various definitions. Can any one be said to be “best”?
    2. Compare the Walrasian and Marshallian stability conditions as to (a) their content, (b) the types of markets in which they are realistically applicable, and (c) the situations in which they do not agree.
    3. If 1000 sellers have fixed supplies of 50 units each of a good, how does the demand confronting each individual seller relate to the market demand (a) as to slope, (b) as to elasticity? How are the answers affected if each seller has a positively sloped supply schedule?
  2. Review of the revenue and cost curves of the firm and its long-run and short-run equilibrium. Comparative implications of competitive and monopolistic equilibrium.
    1. Show how the price elasticity of demand for a good is related to average and marginal revenue. Why is a monopolist never in static equilibrium in the range where his demand is relatively inelastic?
    2. Given the linear demand p = a –bq, show that price elasticity depends only on p and a, or only on q and a/b. When do two linear demands have the same elasticity (a) at any given price, (b) at any given quantity?
    3. Given two linear demand (with different slope and different axis-intercepts) and a point on one of them, find geometrically the point on the other with the same elasticity.
    4. A linear demand and a demand that is concave from above are tangent at a particular point. In the vicinity of that output, how much can you say about the relative magnitudes, slopes , and curvatures of the respective marginal revenue curves?
    5. Given relevant segments of a monopolist’s AR, MR, and MC curves (but not AC), show how much his profit is reduced if he is forced to charge a somewhat lower price than his profit-maximizing one—on the assumption that he still has an incentive to satisfy the full demand at the new price.
    6. “Short-run marginal cost is typically smaller than long-run marginal cost, since the former reflects only variable cost while the latter reflects full cost.” Discuss.
    7. Discuss the virtues and limitations of Lerner’s concept of the degree of monopoly power, M = (AR-MC)/AR. Would it make any difference if he had defined it as M´ = (AR-MR)/AR?
    8. “A profit-maximizing monopolist, in contrast to a pure competitor, would always prefer to sell more than he actually can, at the price he hooses to set. This is why monopolists frequently advertise and pure competitors never do; and it is also why equilibrium can be analyzed by means of demand and supply curves in pure competition but not in monopoly.” Discuss.
  1. Long-run and short-run equilibrium of the purely competitive industry, with comparative statics problems. Supply curves reflecting pecuniary v. real or technological externalities.
    1. Give as many distinct reasons as you can why a purely competitive industry’s long-run supply curve may be positively sloped? Negatively sloped?
    2. “If a purely competitive industry’s long-run equilibrium is disturbed by a sudden increase in demand, the effects on price are likely to be greater in the short run than the long, and the effects on output are likely to be just the opposite.” Discuss.
    3. Under what circumstances, if any, is the Marshallian producers’-surplus area above a supply curve a defensible concept? When is it clearly indefensible?
    4. In a purely competitive industry with negatively sloped demand, can a commodity tax lower the price? Can it raise price by more than the amount of the tax? Show that the answers differ according as the stability conditions are assumed to be Walrasian or Marshallian.
    5. In a purely competitive industry where firms all have u-shaped costs and the industry’s long-run supply is horizontal, compare the effects of a specific commodity tax, a franchise tax, and a limited licensing of firms—such that all would have the same effect on industry output.
    6. Assume that a distinctive type of grape can be grown only on a distinctive type of vineyard land, which is valueless in any other use. This land varies widely in quality from one acre to another. The only other factor, labor, is homogeneous and in perfectly elastic supply to this single industry. (Assume, for convenience, that one firm always cultivates just one acre, irrespective of relative factor prices.)
      1. If the land is widely owned and the grape industry is purely competitive, show how its long-run supply curve is derived. Then, for some given grape demand, show how the aggregate equilibrium rent is determined.
      2. What would be the comparative effects of a tax on the grapes and a tax on the vineyard land that would raise the same revenue? Might the landlords ever prefer the latter tax?
      3. Starting from the equilibrium in (a), assume that laborers become free to allocate themselves on the vineyard land and receive equal per capita shares of the total grape revenue. How would this affect the price and quantity of grapes, incomes, and allocational efficiency?
    7. Explain why, in some purely competitive industries, social marginal cost may be different from private marginal cost.
  2. Comparative statics of monopoly: changes of demand, cost, taxes, various regulations. Equilibrium with advertising, with price discrimination, with systematic seasonal shifts of demand.
    1. In a monopoly with negatively sloped demand, can a specific tax lower price? Can it raise price by more than the amount of the tax? Show that the answers depend on the second-order conditions for a profit maximum. Are these special results more or less likely than in pure competition (cf. question 15).
    2. For any given specific tax, does a fully equivalent ad valorem tax exist (a) in pure competition, (b) in monopoly?
    3. “Not only does a monopolized industry produce less than a competitive one would, but also when superior productive equipment becomes available, the monopolist is motivated to introduce it more slowly.” Explain wherein you agree or disagree.
    4. What determines whether a static-equilibrium monopoly price will rise or fall in response to an increase of demand? Does it make any difference whether the demand increase is spontaneous or induced by advertising? Can an increase in demand ever reduce a monopolist’s equilibrium output?
    5. Under what circumstances will a price ceiling imposed on a monopolist
      1. leave him with incentive to satisfy the full demand at that price,
      2. induce him to produce an output that is positive but not great enough to satisfy the full demand, or
      3. drive him out of business?
    6. “The greater is a firm’s degree of monopoly power (in Lerner’s sense), the more likely is it to find advertising profitable.” What can be said for and against this proposition?
    7. When is it profitable to discriminate as to price in two markets for a physically homogeneous product? Are there any circumstances in which the buyers in both markets may benefit from the discrimination?
  3. Monopolistic competition: oligopoly and product differentiation.
    1. Why are none of the duopoly solutions proposed by Cournot, Bertrand, Stackelberg, and Chamberlin wholly satisfactory?
    2. If duopolists produce differentiated products, what are the comparative consequences under (a) price-quoting and (b) quantity-setting? Specifically, compare the Cournot and Bertrand equilibria, the corresponding Stackelberg equilibria (and warfares), the potentialities for collusion, and the potentialities for warfare.
    3. How and why is the problem of oligopolistic interdependence allegedly avoided in Chamberlin’s large-group case of monopolistic competition? Are you satisfied that it is really avoided? Compare it in this respect with pure competition.
    4. As compared with simple monopoly, what additional sources of uncertainty are there with respect to comparative-statics problems under monopolistic competition?

_______________________________

Waiver Exam—14.122
September 11, 1974

Answer any TWO questions (about 40 minutes each):

Question 1:

  1. Show how the total, average, and marginal cost curves of a one-product firm are related to one another in the long-run—as to intersections, minima, inflection points, etc. (Assume that the total-cost function is continuous up to at least its second derivative and that production is subject first to net economies of scale and then to net diseconomies.)
  2. Show how those same long-run cost curves are related to their short-run counterparts, identifying all notable points of correspondence.

Question 2:

In a small community surrounding a lake, workers can get all the employment they need in industry at a wage of $20 per day. An alternative employment is to catch fish in the lake and sell it in the environs at a constant price of $10 per bushel. With labor valued at the going wage, the cost of fish per bushel rises with the total amount of fishing. Specifically, the average cost of fish (in dollars per bushel) is related thus to the total number of bushels caught per day:

C = 2 + .005q

  1. With free entry to the lake, how much fish will be caught?
  2. Show that everybody can be made better off if the community levies an appropriate tax per bushel of fish. What is the optimal tax?
  3. If, alternatively, the lake were privately owned and the owner could hire labor to catch fish at the same cost as before, what output would maximize his net income?
  4. Would it always be appropriate, as in (b), to impose a tax on any competitive industry with a positively sloped supply curve? Explain briefly.

Question 3:

“If a specific tax of given magnitude is imposed on a good that is producible at constant unit cost, the equilibrium price may be raised either more or less under monopoly than under competition. Even when the price rises by an appreciably smaller amount under monopoly, however, it is still very likely to be socially disadvantageous to tax such a monopolized good rather than competitive ones.” Explain fully wherein you agree or disagree with each sentence.

_______________________________

14.122
November 1, 1974

One hour and a half
Answer any FIVE of the following six questions:

  1. If a specific tax is imposed on a commodity produced by a purely competitive industry, what effects on price can be ruled out under the stability conditions specified by (a) Marshall; (b) Walras? Explain.
  2. You are given this cost function:

C= aqc + bq,

where C is total cost, qc is an absolute-capacity output (fixed in the short run), q is the actual output (less than or equal to qc), and a and b are positive constants. Draw carefully the implied long-run cost schedules and several sample sets of short-run cost schedules—total, average and marginal. Comment on the relationship between long-run and short-run marginal cost.

  1. “When the demand for a monopolist’s product increases, his profit-maximizing price may rise, remain the same, or fall. The conditions governing this result are exactly the same whether the increase in demand is spontaneous or induced by advertising.” Explain why you agree or disagree.
  2. “Fully equivalent specific and ad valorem taxes are possible in pure competition but not in monopoly.” Explain why you agree or disagree.
  3. When does a positively sloped supply curve imply some form of producers’ surplus, and when does it not? Explain.
  4. In an oligopoly with differentiated products, would the price be lower in a Cournot equilibrium or a Bertrand equilibrium? Explain.

Source: Personal copies.

Image Source:Robert L. Bishop at MIT Museum  .

Categories
Courses M.I.T. Syllabus

M.I.T. Industrial Economics Syllabus. Bishop. 1957

Robert Lyle Bishop was born June 4, 1916 in St. Louis, Missouri. He graduated summa cum laude from Harvard in 1937.  He was awarded a Sheldon Travelling Fellowship that financed a ten month study tour in Europe. He then went to Princeton for the following year (1938-9), but returned to Harvard where he received an appointment as instructor in economics and tutor in the Division of History, Government and Economics. Bishop moved to M.I.T. in September 1942. Robert Bishop received his Ph.D. in economics from Harvard in 1950. The title of his doctoral dissertation was “The Mechanization of the Glass-Container Industry: a Study in the Economics of Technological Change.”  Besides having served as department chairman (1958-1965) and as dean of the School of Humanities and Social Science (1964-73),  his biggest mark in the education of economists at M.I.T. is to be found in his mimeographed notes for 14.121, the graduate-level introduction to microeconomic theory. Bishop died February 7, 2013.

This reading list for Robert L. Bishop’s first term in a two-term sequence is found filed in a folder of reading lists in Robert Solow’s papers at Duke.

Fun fact: A future president of the United States, an undergraduate named John F. Kennedy, lived in the suite directly below Bishop’s tutorial quarters in F entry of Winthrop House.

_______________________________

Course Enrollment

“Problems in Industrial Economics” (14.271) in the Fall term of 1957 was taught by Professor Robert L. Bishop. The course met three hours per week. Seven students were enrolled.

Source: MIT Libraries, Institute Archives. MIT Department of Economics Records, Box 3, Folder “Teaching Responsibility”.

_______________________________

Brief Course Description

The prerequisite for the course was the intermediate microeconomics course “Prices and Production” (14.03).

Small and large enterprises in the American economy; market structures; degrees of monopoly and competition; requisites of public policy.

Source: Course Catalogue of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1957-1958, p. 234.

_______________________________

 

14.271 Reading List
Fall, 1957

  1. General

  1. P.W.S. Andrews, “Industrial Economics as a Specialist Subject,” Journal of Industrial Economics, Nov. 1952.
  2. W. Leontief, “Input-Output Economics,” Scientific American, Oct. 1951.
  3. Bureau of the Census, 1952 Annual Survey of Manufactures, pp. 1-12, 201-06.
  4. Conklin and Goldstein, “Census Principles of Industry and Product Classification”, Universities: National Bureau of Economic Research, in Business Concentration and Price Policy, pp. 15-55.
  5. J.S. Bain, “Price and Production Policies,” in Ellis (ed.), Survey of Contemporary Economics, Vol. I., pp. 129-73.
  6. J.K. Galbraith, “Monopoly and the Concentration of Economic Power,” in Ellis (ed.), Survey of Contemporary Economics, Vol. I. pp. 99-128.
  7. E.A.G. Robinson, The Structure of Competitive Industry.
  8. Foss and Churchill, “The Size Distribution of the postwar Business Population,” Survey of Current Business, May 1950, pp. 12-20.
  9. Survey of Current Business, National Income Supplement, July 1954, Tables 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 25, 27, 29.

  1. Big Business Concentration, and the “Monopoly Problem”

  1. A. A. Berle, The 20th Century Capitalist Revolution, pp. 1-60.
  2. Joel Dean, Managerial Economics, pp. 97-109.
  3. A. Papandreou, “Problems in the Theory of the Firm, “ in Haley (ed.) Survey of Contemporary Economics, Vol. II, pp. 183-222.
  4. Kaplan and Kahn, “Big Business in a Competitive Society,” Fortune, Feb. 1953, pp. 1-14.
  5. Corwin Edwards, “Conglomerate Bigness as a Source of Power,” in National Bureau of Economic Research, Business Concentration and Price Policy, pp. 331-60.
  6. T.N.E.C. Monograph No. 27, Part I, pp. 1-18, 54-57; Part V, 273-96, 407-12; Part VI, pp. 581-91, 660-71.
  7. Stocking and Watkins, Monopoly and Free Enterprise, pp. 53-84.
  8. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cost Behavior and Price Policy, pp. 219-66.
  9. A. N. Burns, The Decline of Competition, pp. 1-42.
  10. E.S. Mason, “Industrial Concentration and the Decline of Competition,” in Explorations in Economics, pp. 434-43; also available in Mason, Economic Concentration and the Monopoly Problem, pp. 16-43.
  11. J.M. Clark, The Economics of Overhead Cost, pp. 434-50.
  12. Butters, Lintner, and Cary, The Effects of Taxation: Corporate Mergers, Chs. IX, X.
  13. M.A. Adelman, “The Measurement of Industrial Concentration,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Nov. 1951, pp. 269-96.
  14. Edwards, Stocking, George, and Berle, “Four Comments on ‘The Measurement of Industrial Concentration,’ with a Rejoinder by Professor Adelman,” Review of Economics and Statistics, May 1952, pp. 156-78.
  15. J.M. Blair, “The Measurement of Industrial Concentration: A Reply,” M.A. Adelman, “Rejoinder,” Lintner and Butters, “Further Rejoinder,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Nov. 1952, pp. 343-67.

  1. General Motors and the Automobile Industry

  1. Joel Dean, Managerial Economics, pp. 397-403, 427-57.
  2. Donaldson Brown, “Pricing Policy in Relation to Financial Control,” Management and Administration, Feb., Mar., and Apr., 1924.
  3. Albert Bradley, “Financial Control Policies of General Motors,” paper read to American Management Association, 1926, revised 1928.
  4. H.B. Vanderblue, “Pricing Policies in the Automobile Industry,” Harvard Business Review, (1939), Vol. 18, pp. 385-401, and Vol. 19, pp. 64-81.
  5. Wall Street Journal, “How Auto Firms Figure Their Costs to Reckon The Price Dealers Pay”, December 10, 1957.
  6. General Motors Corporation, The Dynamics of Automobile Demand, articles by Horner and S.M. Du Brul, pp. 3-18, 124-139.
  7. D.A. Moore, “The Automobile Industry,” in Adams (ed.), The Structure of American Industry, 2nd ed., pp. 274-325.

  1. Competition in the Steel Industry

  1. Walter Adams, “The Steel Industry,” in Adams (ed.), The Structure of American Industry, 2nd ed.
  2. R.L. Bishop, “Price Stability v. Flexibility,” manuscript.
  3. U.S. Steel Corporation, Business, Big and Small, Built America, articles by D. Austin and B.B. Smith, pp. 69-111.
  4. Synopses and Excerpts from Affidavits in U.S. v. Bethlehem Steel and Youngstown Sheet and Tube, 1957.
  5. R.L. Bishop, “On the Definition of Markets,” manuscript.
  6. Fritz Machlup, The Basing-Point System, Chs. 1, 3, 5.
  7. J.M. Clark, “Basing Point Methods of Price Quoting,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 1938, pp. 477-89.
  8. Carl Kaysen, “Basing Point Pricing and Public Policy,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Aug. 1949.

  1. Cost Determination and Analysis

  1. J. M. Clark, The Economics of Overhead Costs, pp. 17-69, 201-03, 459-79.
  2. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cost Behavior and Price Policy, pp. 1-32, 51-218.
  3. Caleb Smith, “Survey of the Empirical Evidence on Economies of Scale,” in Universities, National Bureau of Economic Research, Business Concentration and Price Policy, pp. 213-38.
  4. J.S. Bain, “Economies of Scale, Concentration, and Condition of Entry in Twenty Manufacturing Industries,” Economic Review, 1954, pp. 15-39.
  5. Leonard J. Doyle, “Most Profitable Product Volume,” N.A.C.A. Bulletin No. 30 (Feb. 1, 1949), pp. 643-52.
  6. James Earley, “Marginal Policies of ‘Excellently Managed’ Companies,” American Economic Review, Mar. 1956, pp. 44-70.
  7. Joel Dean, Managerial Economics, pp. 247-347.

 

Source: Duke University. Rubenstein Library. Papers of Robert M. Solow, Box 68, Folder “Reading lists”.

Image Source:   Robert Lyle Bishop. MIT Museum.