Tag: Cowles

Categories
Chicago Economics Programs Economist Market

Chicago. Draft memo of a program to rebuild the department of economics by T.W. Schultz, 1956

 

The following draft memo by T. W. Schultz outlines the serious faculty replacement needs of the University of Chicago department of economics in the mid-1950s. Particularly noteworthy, aside from the impressive list of lost faculty, is the appended table listing the sponsored research/3rd party funders of the economics department at that time. One also sees that the department had been authorized to make offers to Kenneth Arrow, Robert Solow and Arthur F. Burns. So much for the best-laid plans of mice and men. A better historian of economics than I might spin a counterfactual tale of a post-Cowles Chicago with Arrow and Solow on the faculty.

Regarding the ICA Chile Enterprise: Economic Research Center, Schultz wrote “The Chilean enterprise will give us a fine ‘laboratory’ in which to test ourselves in the area of economic development– a major new field in economics.” This reminds me of the old Cold-War Eastern European joke about whether Marx and Engels were scientists (“No, real scientists would have tried their experiments on rats first”). What a “fine ‘laboratory'” for testing oneself!

_________________________

A Program of Rebuilding the Department of Economics
(first draft, private and confidential – T. W. Schultz, May 22, 1956)

Your Department of Economics has been passing through a crisis. Whether it would survive as a first rate department has been seriously in doubt, with one adversity following another as was the case up until last year. It is now clear, however, that we have achieved a turning point in that we can rebuild and attain the objective which is worth striving for – an outstanding faculty in economics.

The crisis came upon us as a consequence of a combination of things: (1) the department, along with others in the University, had been denied access to undergraduate students of the University who might want to become economists; (2) Viner left for Princeton, Lange for Poland, Yntema for Ford and Douglas for the Senate; (3) the Industrial Relations Center drained off some of our talent and when it jammed, Harbison left for Princeton; (4) Mr. Cowles’ arbitrary decision to shift “his” Commission to Yale was a major blow; (5) Nef been transferring his talents to the Committee on Social Thought, and (6) add to all these the retirement of Knight.

Meanwhile, there were several external developments which did not reduce our difficulties: (1) a number of strong (new) economic centers were being established – at Stanford, Johns Hopkins, Yale, Vanderbilt, M.I.T. and with public funds at Michigan and Minnesota; (2) our salaries were falling behind seriously relative to some of the other places, and (3) recruiting of established, highly competent economists became all but impossible given the crisis that was upon us and the (then) low repute of the University neighborhood.

The ever present danger of the past few years has been that we would be in the judgment of competent colleagues elsewhere, in the beliefs of oncoming graduate students and in the eyes of the major foundations – not recover our high standing but instead sing to a second or even a third-rate department and in the process lose the (internal) capacity to recruit and rebuild.

We now have achieved a turning point distinctly in our favor.

The major efforts which have contributed most have been as follows:

  1. We have taken full advantage of our unique organization in combining real research with graduate instruction. Our research and instruction workshops are the result. The Rockefeller Foundation gave us three grants along the way – agricultural economics, money and public finance – to test this approach and advanced graduate work. The Ford Foundation has now financed our workshops with $200,000 (eight 5-year grant) (our proposal of January 1956 to The Ford Foundation states the theory and argues the case for this approach on the basis of the experiences we have already accumulated).
  2. We set out aggressively to recruit outstanding younger economists. The workshops were a big aid to us in doing this; so was the financial support of the University. We had the ability to “spot them”. We now have the best group of talented young economists, age 30 and less, to be found anywhere. This achievement is rapidly becoming known to others in keen “competition” is already upon us as a consequence.
  3. We need urgently to run up a lightning rod, a (rotating) professorship with a salary second to none, to attract talent and make it clear we were in business and would pay for the best. The Ford Foundation took favorably to the idea. (Thought so well of it that they will do the same for 3 other privately supported Universities – Columbia, Harvard and Yale!)
    The $500,000 endowment grant from them for a rotating research professorship is our reward.
  4. The foundations have given us a strong vote of confidence: grants and funds received by the Department of Economics during 1955-56 now total $1,220,000. (A statement listing these is attached).
  5. The marked turn for the better in the number and the quality of students applying for scholarships and fellowships is, also, an affirmative indication.
  6. The Economics Research Center is filling a large gap in providing computing, publishing and related research facilities which was formally a function of the Cowles Commission.
  7. The Chilean enterprise will give us a fine “laboratory” in which to test ourselves in the area of economic development – a major new field in economics.

There remains, however, much to be done. We must, above all, not lose the upward momentum which is now working in our favor.

Faculty and University Financial Support

To have and to hold a first rate faculty in economics now requires between $225,000 and $250,000 of University funds a year.

To have a major faculty means offering instruction and doing research in 8 to 10 fields. Up until two years ago we came close to satisfying the standard in our graduate instruction. We then had 11 (and just prior to that, 12) professors on indefinite tenure.

Then, Koopmans and Marschak were off to Yale, Harbison to Princeton and Knight did reach 70. And, then there were 7. On top of these “woes” came the serious illness of Metzler which greatly curtailed his role; and, Nef having virtually left economics. Thus, only 5 were really active in economics with Wallis carrying many other professional burdens. Meanwhile we added only one – Harberger was given tenured this year.

Accordingly at the indefinite tenure level we are down to about one-half of what is required to have a major faculty. Fortunately, several younger men have entered and have been doing work of very high quality.

It should be said that the Deans and the Chancellor have stood by, prepared to help us rebuild.

Major appointments were authorized – Arrow, Stigler, Solow and others. We still are hoping that Arthur F. Burns will come.

The resignations and the retirement, however, did necessarily reduce sharply the amount of financial support from the University.

In rebuilding, at least five additional tenure positions will be required:

  1. Labor economics (from within)
  2. Trade cycle (we hope it will be Arthur F. Burns, already authorized).
  3. Money
  4. Econometrics and mathematical economics.
  5. Business organization
  6. Consumption economics (when Miss Reid retires; next 3 years we shall have the extra strength of Dr. D. Brady with finances from The Rockefeller Foundation)
  7. International trade (pending Metzler’s recovery)
  8. Economic development.

The faculty and the University financial support recommended is as follows:

Tenured positions (for individuals fully committed to economics).

    1. Now in the harness

6: Friedman, Johnson, Harberger, Hamilton (Metzler), Wallis (Nef), Schultz

    1. To be added

5: Burns pending, (labor), (money), and two other fields, most likely econometrics and business organization

 

Budget:

11 [tenured positions]

  

$165,000
Metzler and Nef $15,000
$180,000
III. Supplementary non-tenure faculty $45,000
Altogether $225,000

 

Outside Financial Support for the Department of Economics

Grants

 Amount of grant Available 1956-57

A. Received during 1955-56.
1.     Sears Roebuck Fellowships

$4,000

$4,000
2.     National Science Foundation (2 years)

$13,000

$6,500
3.     Conservation Foundation (2 years)

$33,000

$16,500
4.     Rockefeller Foundation: consumption economics (3 years)

$45,000

$15,000
5.     American Enterprise (2 years)

$17,250

$8,625
6.     Ford Foundation: research and instructional workshops (5 years)

$200,000

$30,000
7.     Earhart Fellowships.

$6,000

$6,000
8.     S.S.R.C. Student Grants

$5,000

$5,000
9.     Ford Foundation: 3 pre-doctoral grants

$10,200

$10,200
10.  Ford Foundation: faculty research grant (Hamilton)

$12,500

$8,000
11.  ICA Chile Enterprise: Economic Research Center Fellowships, research support (3 yrs)

$375,000

$125,000
12.  Ford Foundation: endowment for rotating research professor

$500,000

$25,000
13.  Rockefeller Foundation: Latin America (Ballesteros)

$5,000

$5,000

Sub-totals

$1,225,950

$264,825

B. Received prior to 1955-56 where funds are available for 1956-57.
1.     Rockefeller Foundation: workshop in money (3 years with one year to go)

$50,000

$20,000
2.     Rockefeller Foundation: workshop in public finance (3 years with one year to go)

$50,000

$20,000
3.     Resources for the Future (3 years with one year to go)

$67,000

$27,000
4.     Russian Agriculture (2 years with one to go)

$47,000

$22,000

B sub-totals

 $214,000 $89,000

A and B totals

$1,439,950

$353,825

 

Source:  University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics Records. Box 42, Folder 8.

Image Source: 1944 photo of T.W. Schultz from University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-07479, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library. Cf. Wikimedia Commons, same portrait (dated 1944) from Library of Congress.

Categories
Chicago Funny Business

Chicago. The Cowles Commission Song. Ca. 1950.

Again Economics in the Rear-View Mirror is happy to provide its readers with an undated Chicago economics department parody found in the files of Milton Friedman. While I can say with complete confidence that the Chicago lyrics were written sometime between 1942 and 1955 (when the Cowles Commission moved on to New Haven), I figure this patriotic war-time tune might have declined in popularity and familiarity starting in the late 1940’s. Thus, for the sake of argument, I’ll just say the “Cowles Commission Song” was written ca. 1950.

Thank goodness for both YouTube and Archive.org and of course our old friend Google, I was able to find the original lyrics to the song “We Must Be Vigilant” and links to a movie rendition as well as this recording of the “We Must Be Vigilant” performed by Ziggy Lane and the the Chico Marx Orchestra. That’s right, Groucho’s older brother.

Perhaps someone will rise to the challenge of producing a Karaoke version of this Cowles Commission Song.  Do we historians of economics know how to party or what?

 

 

COWLES COMMISSION SONG
(to the tune of The American Patrol)

WE MUST BE VIGILANT
Adapted from F.W. Meacham’s “American Patrol”. Music adapted by Joseph A. Burke. Words by Edgar Leslie. (1942)
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, complicate
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 bore.
O, we must urge them all emphatically
To become inclined mathematically
So that all that we’ve developed, may
Someday be applied.

 We Must be Vigilant!
We Must Be Vigilant!
American Patrol!
With arms for the army,
Ships for the navy,
Let this be our goal.
We must be diligent!
We must be diligent!
American Patrol.
Protect our shoreline
To the door line
Of ev’ry native soul.

We need this solidarity
Or else divided we will fall;
It means the popularity
Of peace and happiness for all.
Behind this cause we must keep rallying,
Let there be no dilly dallying;
Keep us free from shill-shallying
Hark to freedom’s call.

(repeat first 11 lines)

Image Source: Mikael Uhlin’s Marxology at marx-brothers.org.

 

Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. Milton Friedman from Cambridge to T.W. Schultz. 29 Mar 1954

About a week ago I posted Milton Friedman’s letter from Cambridge, England to T. W. Schultz dated 28 October 1953. Today we have the next carbon copy of a letter to Schultz from Cambridge in the Milton Friedman papers at the Hoover Institution in which Friedman discusses a range of issues from a one-year appointment in mathematical economics at Chicago, the Cowles’ Directorship appointment, and postdoctoral fellowships. The letter ends with a laundry-list of miscellaneous comments from Arthur Burns’ Economic Report to the President through the reception of McCarthy news in England. Friedman’s candid assessments of many of his fellow-economists make this letter particularly interesting.  More to come!

______________________

If you find this posting interesting, here is the complete list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have assembled. You can subscribe to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror below. There is also an opportunity for comment following each posting….

_____________________

Milton Friedman to T.W. Schultz
29 March 1954

15 Latham Road
Cambridge, England
March 29, 1954

 

Dear Ted:

Of the people you list as possible visiting professors while Koopmans is away, Solow of M.I.T. is the one who offhand appeals to me the most. I have almost no doubt about his absolute competence: I read his doctoral dissertation at an early stage and saw something of him last summer and the preceding summer when he was spending some time at Hanover in connection with one or another of Bill Madow’s projects. He has a seminal mind and analytical ability of a very high order. My only questions would be the other that you raise, whether he is broadly enough interested in economics. And here I am inclined to answer with an uncertain yes, relying partly on the fact that he is flexible and capable of being induced. I do not know Dorfman of California either personally or through his writings. My question about him is that I believe that we would do best if we could use this opportunity in general to bring in someone with a rather different point of view and who will provide a broadening of the kind of thing done under the heading of mathematical economics, and my impression is that Dorfman is very much in the same line as Koopmans – but here too, I don’t have much confidence in my knowledge. As you know, I think very highly of both Modigliani and Christ, but as of the moment for this particular spot, would prefer Solow, partly on grounds of greater differentiation of product.

One rather harebrained possibility that has occurred to me outside your list is Maurice Allais, the French mathematical economist who is Professor at École des Mines. Allais is a crackpot genius in many respects. He came out of engineering and is largely self taught, which means he holds the erroneous views he has discovered for himself as strongly as the correct ones. I have always said that if he had, at a formative age, had one year of really good graduate education in economics he might have become one of the really great names. At the same time, Allais is an exceedingly active and stimulating person who works in mathematical economics of a rather different kind than we have been accustomed to. I think it would be a good thing to have him around for a year – both for us and him – though I am most uncertain that it would be for a longer period. I don’t have any basis for knowing whether Allais would be interested.

I have tried to think over the other European mathematical economists to see if they offer other possibilities. There are others in France: Guilbaud [Georges-Théodule Guilbaud (1912-2008)], Boiteux [Marcel Boiteux (1922-)] (I don’t have that spelled right), but none seem to me as good as Allais for our purposes. There are Frisch and Haavelmo in Norway, Wold in Sweden; of these, Haavelmo would be the best. I find it hard to think of anybody in England who meets this particular bill, and would be at all conceivable. Dick Stone? Has just been over and is not primarily mathematical but might be very good indeed in some ways. Is certainly econometric minded and fairly broadly so. R.G.D. Allen? Has done almost nothing in math. econ. for a long time.*

*[handwritten footnote, incomplete on left side presumably because carbon paper folded on the corner:   “…real possibility here is a young fellow at the London School, A. W. Phillips…invented the “machine” Lerner has been peddling. He came to econ. out of ….good indeed. He has an important paper in the mathematics of stabilization (over) policies, scheduled to appear(?) in Econ. Journal shortly.”]

Getting back home, the names that occur to me have, I am sure, also occurred to you. Is Kenneth Arrow unavailable for a year’s arrangement? What about Vickrey? I don’t believe that in any absolute sense I would rate Vickrey above Christ, say, but for us he has the advantage of bringing a different background and approach.

The above is all written in the context of a definite one-year arrangement in the field of mathematical economics. I realize, of course, that this may turn out to be an undesirable limitation. This is certainly an opportunity to try someone whom we might be interested in permanently; and it may be possible to make temporary arrangements for math. econ. for the coming year – via DuBrul, Marschak, etc. The difficulty is that once I leave this limited field, the remainder is so broad that I hardly know where to turn. For myself, I believe we might well use this to bring someone in in money, if that possibility existed. If it did, I should want strongly to press on you Harry Johnson, here at Cambridge, but originally a Canadian educated at the University of Toronto, who is the one new person I have come to know here who has really impressed me.

One other person from the US left out of the above list but perhaps eligible even within the narrower limitations is William Baumol. Oughtn’t he be considered?

Within the narrower limitations, my own listing would, at the moment, be: Allais, Solow, Baumol, Arrow, Vickrey, Phillips. I would hasten to add that my listing of Arrow fourth is entirely consistent with my believing him the best of the lot in absolute competence, and the one who would still go to the top of this list for a permanent post.

I turn to the other possibility you raise in your letter, a permanent post a la the Tobin one. I am somewhat puzzled how to interpret the change of view, you suggest, I assume that the person would be expected to take over the directorship of Cowles. If this is so, it seems to me highly unfortunate to link it with a permanent post in the department. Obviously, the best of all worlds would be if there were someone we definitely wanted as a permanent member of the department who also happened to be interested in the Cowles area and was willing to direct, or better interested in directing, Cowles. In lieu of this happy accident, I would myself like to see the two issues kept as distinct as possible; to have the Cowles people name a director, with the aid and advice but not necessarily the consent, of the department; have the department offer him cooperation, opportunity to teach, etc., but without having him a full-fledged permanent member. I hope you will pardon these obiter dicta. I realize that this is a topic you have doubtless discussed ad nauseam; what is even more important, if after such discussion, you feel differently, I would predict that you would succeed in persuading me to your view; which is why I leave it with these dicta and without indicating the arguments – you can provide them better than I.

The issue strikes me particularly forcefully because I do feel that in terms of the needs of the department, our main need is not for someone else mainly in the Cowles area; it is for someone to replace either Mints in money, or me in orthodox theory, if I slide over to take Mints’ role.

For Cowles’ sake as well as our own, there might be much to be said for having the directorship be the primary post for whoever comes. It seems to me bad for Cowles to have that post viewed as either a sideshow or a stepping stone. For directorship of Cowles, some names that occur are: Herbert Simon; Dorothy Brady; with more doubt Modigliani. One possibility much farther off the beaten track is Warren Nutter, who has, I gathered, been a phenomenal administrative success in Wash. at Central Intelligence Agency; yet is an economist. Would Charlie Hitch, who has been running Rand’s economic division be completely out?

[Handwritten note: “You know, Gregg Lewis might be better than any of these if he would do it!]

If the post is to be viewed as primarily a professorship in the department, with Cowles directorship as a sideline, I have great difficulty in making any suggestions: I would not, in particular, be enthusiastic about any of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Arrow, yes, but he is apparently out. Simon Kuznets, yes, but he would be likely to make Cowles into something altogether different that it is. I feel literally stuck in trying to think of acceptable candidates. Perhaps I can be more useful in reacting to other suggestions.

Let me combine with this some comments on your March 15 letter, which I should have answered long since.

On the post-doctoral fellowship, I feel less bearish than you, primarily, I suppose because I am inclined to lay a good deal of emphasis on the intangible benefits from having a widespread group of people who have had a year at Chicago. It seems to me that a post-doctoral fellowship is more likely to do this than a staff appointment, both because it is likely to bring in a wider range of people to apply and because it is rather more likely to have a one or two year limit and so a more rapid turnover. What has disappointed me most is the limited number of people among whom we have been forced to choose. Why is it that we don’t get more applications? Is it because we do treat it now like a staff appointment? Do we advertise it as widely as we might and stimulate a considerable number of applicants? Or is it simply because the great increase in number of post-doctoral fellowships available (and decrease in quality of people going in for economics?) has lowered the demand for any one fellowship? I find it hard to believe that making it into a staff appointment would help much in providing more adequate review and appraisal – this is I believe a result of the limitations of time on all of us – but it might give it greater prestige and make it more valuable to the recipient in this way, though, it would cost him tax and limit freedom.

I believe that part of the problem you raise about the postdoctoral fellowship has little to do with it per se but is a general problem about the department. Is our own work subject to as much discussion and advice from our colleagues as each of us would like? The answer seems to me clearly no. The trouble is – and I am afraid it is to some extent unavoidable and common at other places – that we have so many other duties and tasks to perform that being an intellectual community engaged in cross-stimulation perforce takes a back seat. This disease is I think one that grows as the square of the professional age. From this point of view, I think that the more junior people around the better in many ways and I think this one of the real virtues of the development of research projects that will enable us to keep more beginners around.

On the whole, I continue to think that the fellowship idea is sound, in the sense that we ought to have a number of people around who have no assigned duties. I would defend the Mishan result in these terms. I think he was a most useful intellectual stimulant and irritant to have around even if his own output was not too striking. The virtue of the fellowship arrangement is that it enables you to shape the hole to the peg. I cannot of course judge about Prais. But I am surprised by your adverse comments on Dewey’s use of it; I would have thought his one of the clearly most successful post-doctoral fellowships so far.

As you have doubtless heard, Muth has decided to go to Cowles. I am sorry that he has. I think he is good. I am somewhat troubled about the general problem of recruiting for the Workshop at a distance. In addition to Muth, I had heard from Pesek, whom I encouraged but left the matter open because he would rather have a fellowship that he applied for that would pay his travelling expenses to Washington. My general feeling is that it would be a mistake to take anyone just because I am not on the spot, that it would be far better to start fairly slowly, and let the thing build up, adding people as they turn up next year. Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

I am delighted to hear about Fred’s ford project. I had a wire from Willits recently re Harberger and I assume it was in connection with his proposed project. Al Rees will be a splendid editor, I feel, and it is excellent to have him entirely in the department. I hardly know what to think of Morton Grodzins as Dean. I assume that his appointment measn that he was regarded as a successful administrator at the Press. Grodzins has great drive and energy, is clearly bright and intelligent, but whether he has the judgment either of men or of directions of development that is required, and the ability to raise money that Tyler displayed, is something I have less confidence in. Who is taking over the Press?

I enjoyed your comments on both Arthur Burns and McCarthy. With respect to the first, I thought the economic report extraordinarily good, both in its analysis of the immediate situation and in its discussion of the general considerations that should guide policy. It showed courage, too, I think in its willingness to say nasty things about farm supports and minimum wages to mention two. My views about the recession are indicated by the title of a lecture I am scheduled to give in Stockholm towards the end of April: “Why the American Economy is Depression-proof”. After all, there is no reason why Colin Clark should be the only economist sticking his neck out. It continues to seem to me that the danger to be worried about is over-reacting to this recession and in the process producing a subsequent inflationary spurt. Arthur seems to me to be showing real courage in holding out against action. To do something would surely be the easy and in the short run politically popular course.

McCarthyism has of course been attracting enormous attention here. Indeed, for long it has crowded almost all other American news into the background with the result that it has given a thoroughly distorted view of America to newspaper readers. I enclose a clipping in this connection which you may find amusing. it is not a bad summary, though I trust I put in more qualifications.

We have gotten an opportunity to go to Spain via an invitation to lecture at Madrid (Earl’s doing, I suspect), so Rose and I are leaving next week for a week there. Shortly after our return we go to Sweden and Denmark for a couple of weeks. We are very much excited by the prospects. Best regards to all.

Yours

[signed]
Milton

 

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers. Box 194, Folder “194.6 Economics Department S-Z, 1946-1976”.

 

Image: Left, Milton Friedman (between 1946 and 1953 according to note on back of photo in the Hoover Archive in the Milton Friedman papers). Right, Theodore W. Schultz from University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-07484, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. Friedman from Cambridge on Arrow, Tobin, Harry Johnson, Joan Robinson. 1953

Thank goodness for leaves of absence and sabbaticals! In an earlier age letters were actually exchanged between the lone scholar off to foreign groves of academe or government service and colleagues back at the home institution. When Milton Friedman went off to the University of Cambridge for the academic year 1953-54 (see Chapter 17 “Our First Year Abroad”  in Milton and Rose D. Friedman, Two Lucky People: Memoirs), he wrote detailed letters discussing departmental matters and impressions of Cambridge academic life to the chair of the department, Theodore W. Schultz. In this posting we encounter Milton Friedman’s views on possible candidates to take up the directorship of the Cowles Commission, his very positive impression of Harry Johnson, his utter shock regarding Joan Robinson’s views on China, and comparisons between Chicago and Cambridge training in economics. More to come:  Here a letter dated 29 March 1954.

______________________

If you find this posting interesting, here is the complete list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have assembled. You can subscribe to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror below. There is also an opportunity for comment following each posting….

_____________________

15 Latham Road
Cambridge, England
October 28, 1953

Dear Ted [Theodore W. Schultz]:

Many thanks for your letter of October 22. It contained a fuller budget of news then I had otherwise received. I am delighted to hear of the decision of the Rockefeller Foundation, and appreciate your taking the necessary steps including repairing my omission in not specifying the effective date. I am sorry to hear that the problems raised by my absence were still further complicated by Allen [W. Allen Wallis?]. The Harberger-Johnson [Arnold Harberger; D. Gale Johnson] arrangement seems, however, excellent.

It is certainly too bad about Arrow. Re Tobin, as you know, I have in the past had a very high opinion of his ability and promise though I would not have put him as high as Arrow. I regret to say, however, that my opinion fell somewhat this summer as a result of going over in great detail his article on the consumption function in the collection of essays in honor of [John Henry] Williams. As you may know, I drafted this summer a lengthy paper on the theory of the consumption function. One of the pieces of evidence I considered was Tobin’s paper, which reached conclusions in variance with most of the other evidence. On close examination, his conclusions turned out not to be justified by his own evidence, but rather to be a product of sloppy and incompetent statistical analysis. One swallow does not of course make a summer, but I am inclined to give this piece of evidence more weight than I otherwise would since it is the only bit of his work that I have gone over with sufficient care to feel great confidence in my judgment of it. My generally favorable opinion has been based on a rather superficial and casual reading of most of his other published work – indeed, on first reading, I had had an equally favorable opinion of the consumption paper. His memorandum on research that you sent me strikes me as being on the whole very sensible and very good.

In view of the above, I am very uncertain how to respond to your request for my “vote”. Everything obviously depends on the alternatives, and these are likely to vary if viewed in terms of the Cowles position in the department. Are either the former, Tobin may well be the best of the available people. Re: the latter, I much more dubious that he is than formerly. In view of my inability to participate in the discussion of the alternatives, the best thing seems to me to be to abstain from casting a definite vote either way, to make it clear that I shall cheerfully accept the decision of my colleagues, but to urge them strongly to canvass possible alternatives carefully and if possible to avoid letting an appointment to Cowles also commit the department to a permanent appointment in the department, unless the letter seems desirable on its own account.

May I complicate your problem further by introducing another name that the department ought to keep in mind in considering its long-run plans, namely Harry Johnson, now here at Cambridge, but originally a Canadian. Of the various younger people I have met around here, he impresses me as being by all odds the best and most promising, and as of the moment I would unhesitatingly rate him above Tobin. As you know, his specialty has been money and he lectures here on money and banking, but he has also been doing some work in international trade. More than most of the people here he has worked in technical and scientific economics instead of allowing himself to be diverted almost entirely to policy issues – which I suppose appeals to me partly because his policy position is so different from my own but impresses me partly also because I have been rather shocked by how large a part of intellectual activity around here is concerned almost exclusively with current policy issues. I have no idea whether Johnson would be interested in moving – he is certainly regarded as one of the clearly important and promising people at Cambridge and seems to have an assured future here – but the chance seems to me sufficiently great that we ought to keep him on our list.

Incidentally, back to Tobin, Dorothy Brady was having my piece on consumption typed up and was to send a copy to Margaret Reid when done, so that the detailed criticism of Tobin’s article that it contains could be made available to anyone who wanted to look at it.

Writing this paragraph just gave me a brainstorm – why not Dorothy for the Cowles post? In her case it would be easier to separate the appointment from a departmental commitment since she would almost certainly not demand tenure; she is a first-rate and experienced administrator; she has the necessary mathematical and statistical background; and she might give the research program a highly desirable shift toward closer contact with significant detailed empirical and economic problems – which is probably at the same time her strongest recommendation and the greatest obstacle to agreement.

On the other issue you raise, I am very much in favor – from our point of view – of Al Rees for the editorship. I think he would be an excellent editor. I am delighted that you were able to persuade Earl [Hamilton] to stay on for another year – I wish he felt able to keep it longer, as I am sure we all do, but Al seems to me clearly the next best alternative.

We have been enjoying Cambridge very much indeed, though I must confess that to date it has been too stimulating and active for me to have gotten much work done. I am enormously impressed – and in some directions, depressed – by the difference in atmosphere from the US. Educationally, the aim of education is to train the future ruling class rather than simply to educate people, which accounts for much more explicit emphasis in teaching and research on problems of immediate economic policy – economics is essentially taught as an art to be employed by rulers rather than as a science. There is enormous emphasis on form and cleverness, which reaches its peak in debates, of which I have participated in one (opposing the resolution “Yankee-eating baiting is unjustifiable and ungrateful” – tell me, how should I interpret the fact that on the vote of the audience, my side won?) And listening to another in the Cambridge Union. Surprisingly, the appeal is to the emotions rather than the reason; the level of wit and of phrasing is amazingly high, of intellectual content, abysmal. Politically, the atmosphere is incredibly redder than at home. This, I think, accounts for a good deal of the misunderstanding here of the state of civil liberties in the US. The right comparison to make is between tolerance of opinions equally deviant from the norm; the comparison that is made is between tolerance of the same opinion; but the normal opinion here would be regarded as clearly “left” at home, and moderately left opinion here is extremely radical; this difference in average opinion leads to the belief here that there is complete intolerance in the United States. These reflections are partly stimulated by a talk Joan Robinson gave on China a little over a week ago. It was an incredible talk to me; I was glad I went because I wouldn’t have believed anybody who had given me an accurate report, and you will have the same difficulty in believing mine. What is incredible is not alone that she sincerely believed the most extreme statements of the Chinese Communists about tremendous progress as a result of the “liberation”, but that she presented them without any examination of the internal consistency of her successive statements, without a sign of critical intelligence at work, without attempting to cite evidence of a kind she could have expected to acquire as a result of her brief visit there. Had the same talk been given by a faculty member in the US there undoubtedly would have been a fuss while here it passed over without a ripple. This difference may in part reflect a difference in tolerance of extreme opinions; but to a much greater extent it reflects the fact that her opinion is nothing like so extreme relative to British opinion as relative to American. The fair comparison is between the reception of her speech and one that, let us say, Maynard Krueger would make; and I doubt that there would be much difference in the reactions in that case.

The anti-American feeling is really extreme. It is widely accepted that America has concluded that war is inevitable, is no longer even interested in maintaining the peace and only waiting for an appropriate time to start a war. The American troops in England and Europe are said to be unwanted – though I’m sure an outcry would go up if they were to be withdrawn. England’s trade difficulties are America’s fault, because American productivity is growing so shockingly fast – this is a theme that in politer form is being increasingly put forth in academic circles, note especially Hicks in his inaugural address. All in all, these views, surprisingly enough, lead the left and not so left here to espouse essentially the Hoover-Taft position about the role America should play.

These are all of course first impressions for a highly biased segment of England, so I know you will take them with the mass of salt they deserve.

We’re all personally fine. The kids are quite happy in their schools. We are happy to be coming to the end of our month in a hotel – we move into the house we rented this Friday.

Our very best to everyone.

 

Yours,

[signed]

Milton

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers. Box 194, Folder “194.6 Economics Department S-Z, 1946-1976”.

Image: Left, Milton Friedman (between 1946 and 1953 according to note on back of photo in the Hoover Archive in the Milton Friedman papers). Right, Theodore W. Schultz from University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-07484, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.