Tag: ShultzG

Categories
Economics Programs M.I.T.

M.I.T. Economics Department’s Chair exposition of his department’s philosophy and methods. Freeman, 1952

Paul Samuelson’s Economics triggered a conservative cancel-culture backlash unlike any economics textbook before or after. In the previous post we saw how William F. Buckley, Jr.’s attack on the use by Yale professors of Samuelson’s Keynesian textbook forced the chairman of the Yale economics department to defend the honor of his department before the Old Blues (alumni).

M.I.T., home of the heretic Paul Samuelson, proved to be ground zero of this anti-Keynes reaction. This story is well-known now thanks to Yann Girard. The artifact transcribed for this post is a short essay published by Ralph Freeman who was head of the M.I.T. economics department from 1933 to 1958. In it Freeman defended the honor of his department much as Lloyd Reynolds’ essay did for Yale economics. 

Cf. “Negotiating the ‘Middle-of-the-Road’ Position: Paul Samuelson, MIT, and the Politics of Textbook Writing, 1945-55,” by Yann Girard in MIT and the Transformation of American Economics (Annual Supplement to Volume 46, History of Political Economy, ed. by E. Roy Weintraub). Durham: Duke University Press, 2014.

______________________________

President to Department Chair
“Incoming!” 

November 6, 1951

Professor Ralph E. Freeman
Economics Department

Dear Ralph:

Thank you for the Atlantic Monthly with McGeorge Bundy’s article which I have. I wish that his defense could have a wider circulation than it received in the Atlantic.

The Buckley book concerns me mainly because of its attack on Samuelson’s text and because of the wide distribution the Buckley book is receiving it is going to stir up a lot more people.

I venture to send you some of the things that come to my desk simply by way of keeping, you informed of the steady bombardment on Paul Samuelson’s text. This bombardment has been increasing in intensity. Yesterday a member of the Corporation came to see me about it. He had not previously had contact with the book, but he had been approached by various business people who were bitterly critical of the book and who brought to him a publication issued down south which raked over the old Namm comments [Benjamin Namm, “Would You Enter a Door Marked ‘Socialism’?” in Collier’s Weekly (April 29, 1950), pp. 34-49] upon the book.

I have just received a copy of the Brooking Institution study, “A Survey of Economic Education” by McKee and Moulton. I am afraid that the comments made in this study on page 17 in regard to economics textbooks will still further stir people up despite the qualifications which the authors carefully include in their statement.

I hasten to reassure you that despite the mounting criticism I stand no less steadfastly behind Samuelson’s right to take the point of view that seems right and proper to him. I think our best defense against criticism is the one that I repeatedly make, and which I assume to be wholly true, and that is that in our own teaching of economics at the Institute we do not follow any line, that we seek to present a balanced point of view and to give the student the tools so that he can reach his own conclusions. I was interested in Bundy’s statement in his Atlantic article that in attacking Mr. Buckley’s book, he did not wish to maintain that Yale was perfect and that “it is possible that Yale…..would benefit from the appointment of a strongly right-wing economist.

I am sure that so long as we can show that our own teaching of economics is not distorted in any direction and that we are not subtly indoctrinating students with any biased point of view, that we have an unimpregnable and sound position.

Yours cordially,
J. R. Killian, Jr.

JRK: mh

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Department Chair to President
“We’re cool kids, really”

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of
Economics and Social Sciences

Cambridge, Mass.
November 19, 1951

President James R. Killian
Room 3-208

Dear Jim:

         As I indicated to you in a recent conversation, a group of the Department staff is preparing a new book of readings to supplement the textbook which we use in Economic Principles (14.01 and 14.02). I have been delaying writing you about this until final decision has been made as to the contents of this new book. However, a tentative table of contents is now available and I enclose it herewith.

         As you will observe, the projected book of readings aims to present a variety of points of view ranging from radical to conservative, from Marx and Engels to Pope Leo XIII. There are also readings from classical economists such as Adam Smith, Ricardo and Bastiat. Articles criticizing recent government policies are included as well as various opinions on the economics of the defense program. The use of this book will enable us to do on a large scale what we are already doing with a limited number of collateral readings.

         I should like to emphasize once more that the members of the Department as a group range around the center in their economic thinking. There are no extreme radicals or extreme conservatives among us. We try to take a view toward economic problems which is balanced and objective, and in class we try to present both sides of the controversial problems that come up for discussion.

         From some of the attacks aimed at Samuelson’s book, I get the impression that economists are to be condemned if they do not unequivocally approve of everything now being done in the name of private enterprise. This attitude, of course, is absurd. If the economic system is to be kept in working order it must be subjected to a critical analysis. In fact it is the job of the economist to do just this.

         Some of the more extreme conservatives who are today attacking the teaching of economics are inclined to adopt an ostrich-like attitude. After all we do live in a mixed economy — one that is partly private enterprise and partly government control. This is a fact. Should this fact be hidden from students? The answer is clear. But some of our critics talk as though any discussion of what they regard as undesirable trends should be eliminated or reduced to a minimum.

         I can assure you that no member of this Department is trying to undermine the system of freedom. In fact, it is quite the reverse. We are all trying to understand it with a view to making it work better and last longer. Though there is disagreement amongst us on particular issues, we are in agreement on that basic issue.

         I am not sure there is much more that I can say. We would be glad to meet any of our critics face to face in a friendly discussion of any points on which they think we are in error. We do not claim to have all the answers. Our analysis might well be improved as the result of more exchange of ideas with intelligent business men.

Yours sincerely,
[signed] Ralph
Ralph E. Freeman

REF:rw

[in pencil]

Copies of this letter sent to:

Mr Gray [Daniel M. Gray?] of Stoner Mudge [Stoner-Mudge Co., Inc. of Pittsburgh]
Bradley Dewey [Life Member of MIT Corporation, 1932-74]
Dr. Warner, Pres. Carnegie Tech [John Christian Warner (1897-1989), President 1950-65]
Donald Carpenter [Life Member of MIT Corporation, 1943-95]
John Hancock [Member of MIT Corporation, 1949-55]
Walter Beadle [Life Member of MIT Corporation, 1943-88]

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

President to Department Chair
“Be like Yale.”

November 28, 1951

Professor Ralph E. Freeman
Economics Department

Dear Ralph:

         Professor Shultz sent me a copy of an article by Lloyd G. Reynolds entitled “The State of Economics at Yale.” This article seemed to me to be a first-rate exposition of the philosophy and methods of the department at Yale. The material is set forth not in a defensive manner at all, and to me was fairly convincing.

         This is the kind of statement that I have been hoping that someone might prepare on our own department program here. I think it would be of great help to the Visiting Committee and to the department and the administration in supporting the interests of the department.

         I have returned the Reynolds article to Professor Shultz. If you haven’t seen it, you may be interested in borrowing it from him.

Yours cordially,

J. R. Killian, Jr.

JRK: mh

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Department Chairman to President
“You asked for it.”

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of
Economics and Social Sciences

January 17, 1952

Dr. James R. Killian
Room 3-208
M.I.T.

Dear Jim:

I have had sent to you a little article entitled

“Economies at M.I.T.” You may recall that you suggested I try my hand at an article of this sort.

I hope it will be of some help in dealing with correspondence regarding the operations of the Department. Several others of the staff have read and expressed general approval of the contents. It has been suggested that it might be submitted to The Technology Review which might be willing to supply us with some reprints.

I welcome any criticisms or suggestions for additions or omissions.

Yours sincerely,
[signed:] Ralph
Ralph E. Freeman

REF: TW
cc: Dean Burchard

Source: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Office of the President, Records, 1930-1959, Box 93, Folder “8. Freeman, R.E., 1945-54”

__________________________

Note: the following is a transcription of the printed article found in the archive with Freeman’s letter. The typed draft sent to M.I.T. President Killian is identical, only minor editorial changes were made for publication.

Economics at M.I.T.
[1952]

The Economics Staff, with Diverse Backgrounds and Views, Aims to Impart a Technique of Logic for Solving Economic Problems in a Complex Society

By Ralph E. Freeman

                  One of the most difficult problems confronting the professional teacher of economics is the competition he meets from other and more effective teaching agencies. The writer refers to the educational impact of the home, the press, and the radio, as well as the propaganda coming from special-interest groups of one kind or another. These agencies have a competitive advantage. The teacher may be in contact with his class for only two or three hours a week for a part of a year, while his nonacademic competitors have been working on these students since their early childhood.

                  This disadvantage may seem to raise the question as to whether the economist can really teach the subject at all. Doubts on this score are further increased by the unsettled condition of the world during the last decade — a state of affairs that has created many uncertainties for the individual. A student worried about his future can hardly be blamed for indifference toward a subject which often seems dull and remote from his immediate interests. Another disadvantage is the youth and inexperience of the average college student. Favorable experience with the veterans who came to the Institute after World War II indicates that maturity is a great advantage in the study of economics. All these difficulties in the way of the teacher tend to make him humble when appraising the impression he leaves on the minds of the younger generation.

                  These obstacles, however, are also a challenge to the economist to improve his teaching techniques. The Economics staff at the Institute has been continually experimenting with new materials and methods and, though it is not fully satisfied with the results, progress has been achieved. We have tried to keep up with the increasing mass of quantitative data becoming available and to keep abreast of improvements in analytical techniques and of shifts in emphasis resulting from changing economic conditions.

                  An interesting example of such a shift is to be found in the treatment of unemployment and price levels. Prior to the 1930’s, these problems were of secondary interest to most economists. A great deal of what they wrote and taught was based on the assumption of full employment and relatively stable prices. The attention of economists was directed mainly to the way in which productive agencies were allocated among various industries and enterprises. The leading problem was to discover that distribution of human and material resources which would best promote the material well being of the people.

                  In recent years the economist’s inquiry has focused on economic fluctuations. Unemployment of resources has thus become a major problem for investigation along with a study of changes in the level of prices. Because ups and downs in employment and periods of inflation and deflation are associated with changes in income available to purchase goods and services, the spotlight has been turned on income analysis. The study of national income has been stimulated by the publication of improved statistics emanating chiefly from the Federal Government and by the development of new and better techniques of analysis.

                  These statements are not meant to imply that the traditional subjects have been abandoned. The economist is still trying to explain what the economic system is and how it operates. He is still concerned with the role of prices and profits in organizing economic activity and with the functions of money and markets in assigning labor and capital to their more productive uses. What has happened is a reorientation of these traditional inquiries around the problems of income, employment, and price levels. This new approach seems to have brought the study of economics nearer to the daily lives of people and closer to the problems with which businessmen are most vitally concerned.

                  The fact that the beginner in economics is normally young and inexperienced makes it necessary for the teacher to spend a good deal of time describing the facts of economic life. National income, for example, only becomes meaningful as it is broken down into components and expressed in quantitative terms. It is usually desirable, therefore, to start with a discussion of the income of individuals, corporations, and governments. How is the total income of the nation divided among families and groups? How are corporations organized? How do they compute their earnings? What is the role of government and what changes are taking place in the relation of the government to the individual and to business? These are among the questions with which the student of economics is confronted in the early stages of his study. In addition, in most of the subjects offered, time is devoted to describing various institutions such as banks, labor unions, and farmers’ organizations which help determine the nature and direction of economic activity.

                  The main objective of economic education, however, is not to fill the minds of students with facts and statistics, but to impart to them a technique of thinking by means of which they can analyze and solve economic problems for themselves. General principles must be developed that are applicable to a broad range of situations. Among these principles are those that can be applied in understanding changes in the price of goods, changes in wages, interest, and profits, in the general price level and in the national income.

                  The economist is concerned, for example, not so much with what the price of wheat is or has been, as he is with the forces that interact to determine the price of wheat or any other commodity. Though he may study past changes in national income, he is primarily interested in the reason why the national income shifts from one level to another. In other words, he tries to develop an integrated theoretical framework which can be used in the analysis of economic problems.

                  At M.I.T., the economist is regarded as a teacher, not a preacher. His function is not to radiate his own political views nor to propagandize for his own particular social philosophy. His job is to encourage students to form their own opinions. He is not too concerned with what these opinions are. His main job is to ensure that the opinions, whatever they may be, are reached through a logical process of thought, rather than as a result of prejudice or hearsay.

                  The Economics staff of about 30 full-time members has been recruited with this objective in view. When a new man is taken on, we ask two main questions. Is he equipped by training, experience, and intelligence to carry on creative, scholarly work in his chosen field? Is his personality such as to hold out the promise that he will be a competent teacher and a congenial and co-operative colleague? As the result of this method of selection, the group we now have includes no freaks or extremists. Though there is a broad diversity of view on many of the controversial issues of our times, all of the members of the Department share a desire to preserve and improve the free institutions of America. These men rank high in the profession and compare very favorably with economists in other leading institutions.

                  Some people may find it hard to accept the idea that divergence of opinion should be regarded as a healthy condition. Why, it may be asked, should I tolerate a colleague who disagrees with me on government controls, the merits of labor unions, taxation, monetary policy and other questions? My answer would be that differences of opinion give rise to a lively interchange of ideas which is an important element in the educational process. Progress in economics, or in any other scientific discipline, would be stifled if an effort were made to enforce conformance to a single pattern of thought.

                  No matter how firmly we may believe that a given policy is the correct one, there is always a good chance that the man with a different opinion may have something meritorious to propose on his side. A story is told of Al [Alfred E.] Smith who was traveling in upper New York State with two companions, a Protestant and a Catholic. It was early on a bitterly cold Sunday morning when the two Catholics arose to attend mass. Looking at the Protestant sleeping peacefully in his warm bed, Al Smith said to his friend: “Wouldn’t it be awful if he were right and we were wrong!”

                  The chance that the other fellow may be right, or partly right, makes it inadvisable to strive for unanimity of thought and opinion. Tolerance of diversity is necessary for the preservation of the spirit of free inquiry which is the breath of life of an institution devoted to education and research. Such tolerance is one of the main features distinguishing a democratic from a totalitarian society.

                  As indicated above, this concept is applied in the Institute’s educational practices. In all courses, whether they are offered to undergraduates or graduates, the Department of Economics and Social Science tries to present contrasting views and opinions. In the beginning course in Economic Principles, which has been required of all students at the Institute, this procedure is subjected to severe time limitation. But even here this practice is followed. For several years we have been using supplementary readings presenting divers points of view and a new collection of such readings to accompany the textbook has just been prepared — a compilation that includes extracts from economic writings of all sorts, ranging from Karl Marx to the National Association of Manufacturers.

                  Besides this course in Economic Principles, there are many others, both on the undergraduate and the graduate level. These include several in the fields of labor relations, statistics, finance, theory, and international economics. There are courses in business cycles, technological innovation, and in the economics of particular industries. The Department also offers courses in psychology and international relations. As the name implies, the Department of Economics and Social Science is one that covers a wide field. It is a part of the School of Humanities and Social Studies and has close ties with the activities of historians and others who come under the same administrative direction. The bringing together of a number of different social studies exerts a broadening influence on both staff and students. It tends to make us look at human beings as members of an ever-changing, complex society subject to many influences in addition to those of an economic nature.

                  Virtually every student at the Institute takes economics at some point in his program. In addition to those subjects included in the Humanities Program, designed for the Institute as a whole, other subjects are tailored to fit the needs of professional courses such as those offered by the Department of Business and Engineering Administration. The Department also offers a four-year curriculum for undergraduates — Course XIV — leading to a bachelor’s degree in Economics and Engineering. Through emphasis on relationships among engineering, economics, and human relations problems, this Course aims to provide students with an understanding of both technical and non-technical aspects of our industrial society.

                  There is also a graduate division. There are about 50 students in this group, most of whom are candidates for the Ph.D. degree. Many of these men have come to M.I.T. from liberal arts colleges. They go into government, business, labor unions, and teaching as professional economists.

                  Because the training of the professional economist, normally requiring about seven years, is spent mainly in the classroom and the library, his knowledge of actual business practices is more limited than if he were actively employed in industry. This limitation of experience is a handicap of which the men on the Department’s staff are acutely conscious. We do not have as much direct contact, as might be desired, with what goes on in the factories, banks, railroads, public utilities, and other business enterprises whose activities we study.

                  Efforts are being made to bridge the gap between economic theory and business practice. Graduate students are encouraged to find summer employment in industry. Some of the staff members have had temporary jobs in business or government. Others have had an opportunity to get into close touch with industry through research projects. In recent years they have undertaken investigations in textiles, shoes, coal, housing, electronics equipment, and a variety of other industries. Several of our instructors act as consultants to business firms and have had ample opportunity to rub shoulders with businessmen and get a better idea of their operations and problems.

                  The Department also brings in businessmen to meet with classes and join in round-table discussions. The system of Visiting Committees is also helpful in getting the staff into touch with leaders in industry, finance, and the professions. But more of these contacts are needed. If we are to keep our feet on the ground, we must have the counsel and criticism of men of practical affairs.

                  The development of the new School of Industrial Management should be of material assistance in strengthening our contacts with leaders in the business world. Though the Department of Economics and Social Science will not be administratively a part of this School, it will be housed in the same building and will co-operate in carrying out its educational and research program. E. P. Brooks, ’17, Dean of the School, who is now in charge, is consulting with business leaders and hopes to enlist their aid not only in planning the project but also in executing the plans. The Department of Economics and Social Science should benefit, at least indirectly, from these extensive outside relationships.

                  We are grateful to the Alumni and other friends of the Institute who have taken an interest in our work. The Department is indebted to the companies which have supported our Industrial Relations Section, and have helped finance graduate fellowships and research activities; it hopes for a continuation of this interest and support. Such support will be needed if the Department is to maintain its position and to improve and expand its operations.

                  The number of students being graduated from Course XIV is now relatively small. and the demand for their services is high; but in the future we hope to increase the enrollment, and employment conditions are not likely to continue as favorable as they are today. This Course is new and therefore not yet widely known. Because it combines basic education in engineering and science, as well as in economics, and other social studies, its graduates have a broad background that should make them useful in a wide variety of jobs.

                  This spring the Department of Economics and Social Science expects to move into the recently acquired Sloan Building along with the School of Industrial Management. Readers of this article are invited to come and visit us in our new quarters. We will show you our Industrial Relations Library and our Psychological Laboratory. We will tell you about the Scanlon Plan that is making a valuable contribution to the betterment of employer-employee relations. We will describe research projects under way and point with pride to a growing list of publications by members of the Department. We would like to discuss with you the plans we have for future development in psychology and political science. The reader may be interested in meeting some of the staff or in talking to groups of students and if he can bear it, we will also tell him about some of our trials and tribulations. And perhaps he may have something on his mind he would like to tell us. If so, we will gladly listen. Our new address will be 50 Memorial Drive.

Source: The Technology Review (April 1952), pp. 304-6, 320.

Image Source: This portrait of Ralph Freeman can be found in the 1950 yearbook. The copy used here comes from the MIT Museum website where it no date has been provided. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Categories
Economists Funny Business NBER

NBER. An Ode to Arthur F. Burns, sung to the tune of “Silver Dollar”, George Shultz, 1970

George P. Shultz and Arthur F. Burns

 

 

As I was paging through images of some documents I had examined a few years ago in the papers of Arthur F. Burns at Duke University’s Economists’ Papers Archive, I found an image of a sheet of paper with the following brief  “Ode to Arthur Burns.” It was typed (perhaps printed) in the lower left quadrant of a sheet of paper. As often happens to us archive rats, we find an interesting document but one that comes with no clear indication of either authorship or the circumstances surrounding the creation of the particular document.

I will admit that I liked the Ode because it captures the essence of the Schmoller-Menger Methodenstreit and its 20th century revival seen in the Koopmans-Burns-and-Mitchell controversy regarding the proper dosage of theory required for scientific economic measurement. Recall: Burns and Mitchell got burned pretty badly by Koopmans’ review of Measuring Business Cycles.

Moderation was to come to the Cowles Commission in its 1952 shift from its chosen motto “Science is Measurement” to “Theory and Measurement”. On the other side, the NBER has long become a lot more like the Cowles Commission of old than it has to its statistical-institutionalist ancestors of the first half of the 20thcentury.

The theory versus empirical split is analogous to the normative versus positive economics split recognized in the earliest methodological tracts of philosophically inclined economists. Working economists in the mainstream view themselves bathed in the flattering light of moderation along both methodological dimensions. Both-side-ism is not just a journalistic weakness. Those who work on the frontiers of human knowledge love striking an Aristotelian pose of reasonable moderation (don’t we all?).

But getting back to the issue of the authorship of the Ode and its larger context, let me identify the two suspects of Ode authorship swept up in my duly diligent Google search:

  • George P. Shultz (1920-2021): a 1949 M.I.T. Ph.D. alumnus in industrial economics, Dean of the Business School at the University of Chicago, and successively Secretary of Labor, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Secretary of the Treasury, and Secretary of State in Republican Administrations.
  • Edward Teller (1908-2003): the “father of the hydrogen bomb”, and if not Stanley Kubrick’s human model for Dr. Strangelove then a Doppelgänger to a second-order approximation. It is not altogether obvious how he could possibly fit into the picture.

So Whodunnit? We begin at the scene of the literary crime.

__________________________

Ode to Arthur Burns

A fact without a theory
Is like a ship without a sail,
Is like a boat without a rudder,
Is like a kite without a tail.

A fact without a theory
Is as sad as sad can be
But, if there’s one thing worse
In this universe,
It’s a theory without a fact.”

Source: Duke University, David M. Rubinstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Arthur F. Burns Papers. Box 6, Folder “Other papers 1926-1987 (1 of 2)”,

__________________________

Sometimes it just turns out that you get lucky with a Google search using just a snip of a quotation. George Shultz was reported to be the author of lyrics that he sang to “the lively tune of Silver Dollar”. This title meant nothing to me. But before turning to the further power of the internet, let us enter the relevant portion of the Time magazine profile of George Shultz with its lede that takes the reader back to a “VIP-stacked Manhattan dinner”, ca. 1970. We note minor differences in the middle of the second stanza but it seems likely that at the latest the Ode was performed in 1970.

The Economy:
Another Professor with Power

CONCLUDING a speech on economic policy at a VIP-stacked Manhattan dinner three years ago, George Shultz startled the audience by abruptly breaking into song. To the lively tune of Silver Dollar, the then director of the Office of Management and Budget [sic, he was Secretary of Labor at the NBER dinner in 1970] belted forth in full voice:

A fact without a theory
Is like a ship without a sail,
Is like a boat without a rudder,
Is like a kite without a tail.

 

A fact without a figure
Is a tragic final act,
But one thing worse
In this universe
Is a theory without a fact.

Shultz is seldom short on either fact or theory, although the softspoken, smooth-faced economist seldom expresses his ideas in song. His quick grasp of facts and theories, his skill in persuading the federal bureaucracy to act on them—plus an ironclad loyalty to the President—are the qualities that have prompted Richard Nixon to keep investing his Treasury Secretary with added clout. By now Shultz has become one of the two or three most powerful men in Washington….

Source: Time Magazine. Monday, Feb. 26, 1973.

__________________________

This evidence was enough to get me to take a deeper dive into another folder in Burns’ papers at Duke where I had found a copy of the pamphlet that was prepared as memorial to Arthur F. Burns after his death with brief tributes from President Ronald Reagan, Rabbi Joshua Haberman, Milton Friedman, Senator Pete Domenici, Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, Secretary of State George Shultz, and former Presidents Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon.

In his tribute George Shultz clearly staked a claim of authorship to the Ode to Arthur Burns. 

George P. Shultz

O’Bie [nickname of George Shultz’s wife, née O’Brien] and I have a wonderful friend in Arthur Burns. We have lost him, but his influence and example live on with us. As Arthur Burns has touched and enriched our lives as individuals, so he has left our country an enduring legacy of scholarship and statesmanship.

Arthur lived according to deeply held values, both moral and intellectual. There was never a more devoted, or a more effective, defender of democratic freedoms — political and economic, and also intellectual — than soft-spoken Arthur Burns.

Arthur’s scholarship was truly of Biblical scope. Helmut Schmidt called him the Pope of Economics. But he was also a great student of the bible, and he lived by the values he found in the Scriptures. Arthur believed in learning, in work, in service, in personal discipline. He thrived on the creative tension between an idea and its application. His legendary tolerance for debate and discussion was a measure of his rigorous respect for intellectual integrity. This same respect for human intelligence also meant that Arthur suffered no fools gladly.

Facts held a fascination for him that no grand theories could match. He insisted that statements be meticulously accurate. He believed that theories, like his beloved New England houses should stand four-square on a solid foundation of facts.

Arthur suspected that someone who was careless with facts was likely to be careless in thought and unsound in judgment. For a dinner in his honor years ago. I wrote words to an old tune to describe this attitude of his:

(Sung)

A fact without a theory is as sad as sad can be.
But if there’s one thing worse
In this universe,
It’s a theory without a fact.

This combination of intellectual and moral values, an insatiable capacity for disciplined work, and an ability to bridge the distance between concept and reality gave Arthur Burns a tremendous force of personality. When convinced of something Arthur was more powerful in his advocacy than just about anyone I have known. But convinced he had to be. Ever the student, Arthur was the first to admit when he didn’t know something and the first to seek out an answer.

I remember seeing Arthur in Germany in 1982, not long after his arrival as ambassador. He was already in his late seventies; yet, like a kid with a new toy, he was determined to master the German language and to understand the society and the economy. Master them he did, during a period of special challenge for our bilateral relations and for the NATO alliance. He never stopped learning. That’s why his life was so full.

Arthur is now mourned on both sides of the Atlantic on both sides of the aisle, in government, in business, in finance in academia. For years to come, Presidents and professors, Secretaries of State, and students of economics, even Governors of the Federal Reserve, will continue to learn from Arthur Burns, through the enduring force of his intellectual legacy.

We — his family, friends, colleagues — have had the great joy and privilege of knowing Arthur, the man. We will miss his infectious curiosity. We will miss his kindness. We will miss his counsel, his candor and his integrity. And, we will carry him in our hearts always.

Source: Duke University, David M. Rubinstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Arthur F. Burns Papers. Box 6, Folder “Memorial and remembrances, 1987-2003”, pp. 19-20.

__________________________

50th Anniversary Celebration
of NBER

The New York Times (March 2, 1970 p. 55 ) reported a dinner at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel to honor the 50thanniversary of the National Bureau of Economic Research where both Arthur F. Burns (chairman of the Federal Reserve Board) and George P. Shultz (Secretary of Labor) were in attendance.  

THE HONORABLE GEORGE P. SHULTZ…now let me talk for a moment about Burns’ Laws, and here I’m talking to the Federal Reserve Board staff, of course. (Laughter)

Well! First, all calculations must be checked at least twice, independently.

Second, we must develop measurements of all the key variables. Be sure they’re as good as possible, and understand their strengths and limitations.

Third, always identify the logical structure of the argument, and if it has none, discount it and him. (Laughter)

Fourth, be willing to live with ambiguity, have patience, suspend judgment, wait for the facts to come in.

Fifth, certainly don’t be satisfied with examination of the aggregates. Look below the aggregates and the over-all movement of the figures; at the components, as certainly the components may be the most revealing, let alone appealing.

An finally, it’s important to examine the facts, and as Professor Leontief stated, to have a good conception for the relationship of the facts to the theory.

And so I would like to close with a little song, which I will try to sing to you. And this is by way of a sort of a ballad for Arthur Burns, and it’s my nomination for the alma mater, at least for the old National Bureau, if not for the new, and the theme song for the new Federal Reserve Board. And I’ll tell you I’ll give it a riffle through the first vers, and then I expect especially the head table, which has some briefing, to at least join me on the second, but I expect all of you to join me, too.

Ready? (Laughter)

A fact without a theory,
Is like a ship without a sail,
Is like a boat without a rudder,
Is like a kite without a tail!

A fact without a theory
Is like a tragic final act.
But if there’s one thing worse
In this universe
It’s a theory—I said a theory—I mean a theory—
Without a fact! (Laughter and applause)

[…]

THE HONORABLE ARTHUR F. BURNS: …And then I heard George sing a song, second time I heard it, and I’m puzzled. I asked George, sitting beside him, what would be the subject of his address tonight? And he mumbled, oh, something about guidelines. I said, “Oh no, you ought to sing that song, George.” Now I don’t know whether I inspired George to sing that song or whether the thought occurred to him independently. Somehow George and I have been on the same wavelength for so long, that though communicated itself from one to the other….

Source: National Bureau of Economic Research. Fiftieth Anniversary Dinner: Transcript of Proceedings, A Supplement to National Bureau Report 6 (June 1970) p. 20, 25.

__________________________

Handwritten copy of the Ode in Edward Teller’s desk
on White House stationery.

One shouldn’t think that the issue of authorship of the Ode would be a slam-dunk affair. Actually the first lead Google provided me was to an article in Hungarian (!) about the poetry (I am not making this up) of the nuclear physicist Edward Teller.

Having no reason to doubt Google’s translation of the Hungarian text, I learned that after the death of Edward Teller “a small note was found in a drawer.” An image of a handwritten note on White House stationery (without a date) was included and is provided below.

Source: Nyomhagyók Rovat, “Gyönyörködni titkos, mély harmóniákban” Teller Ede versei. Ponticulus Hungaricus, XXIII. évfolyam 12. szám ·2019. December.

This handwritten text bears more than a passing resemblance to the Ode found in Burns’ papers at Duke as well as the NBER version of the Ballad for Burns above. The second and fourth lines of the second stanza differ significantly. It is not unusual for songs and covers of songs to display variations after all. The author of the Hungarian article claimed/suggested the English original had been composed by Edward Teller.

Perhaps some kind visitor to Economics in the Rear-view Mirror  has easy access to Edward Teller’s and/or George Shultz’s handwriting to make a determination of the identity of the above scribe in the White House. But even if the note should turn out to be written in Teller’s hand, it does not exclude the possibility that he just copied the verses he heard or read.

In any event it seems to me less likely that Shultz would have plagiarized from Teller than Teller would have instead kept a copy for himself. Besides, Schultz had significantly more opportunity to jot down notes on a White House memo pad than Teller did. This doesn’t take away from the mystery of how this alternate Ode came to Teller’s desk. 

My final forensic note is that Teller was the sort of Central European intellectual who moved from home to home with a Steinway piano throughout his life compared to George Shultz who was a veteran of the U.S. Marines known to have a Princeton tiger tattooed on his (ahem) butt cheek. Which of the two men seems more likely to have recalled the words from a hit single in the early 1950s that covered a 1907 recording? 

__________________________

Which recording served as inspiration to George Shultz?

There are numerous interpretations recorded of Silver Dollar. The Website SecondHandSongs displays 32 versions.

Fun fact: Petula Clark, singer of the Hit “Downtown” (1964), also covered Silver Dollar in December 1950!

But for my silver dollar, the closest variation to the Shultz version is found in a 78 rpm record released in 1950.

Silver Dollar by Clancy Hayes
and his Washboard Five

A man without a woman is like a ship without a sail,
Like a boat without a rudder, just like a kite without a tail.
Yes, a man without a woman is the saddest thing what am.
But if there’s one thing worse in this universe,
It’s a woman without a man! […]

Image Source: Time Magazine cover August 16, 1971.

 

Categories
M.I.T. Regulations Teaching Undergraduate

M.I.T. Dean’s request for writing requirements for elective subjects in economics department, 1953

 

The following exchange between the M.I.T. Dean of Humanities and Social Studies (John E. Burchard) and the representative of the chairperson of the Economics Department (Charles A. Myers covering for Ralph E. Freeman) gives us a short list of undergraduate courses that would have regularly had non-economics B.S. students attending to satisfy their distributional requirements in 1953. Dean Burchard’s informational request seems to be a fishing expedition with the hope of landing any evidence that some instructor in some course was helping to improve M.I.T. undergraduate writing skills. It is also interesting to see that sociology, psychology, and political science were all subjects  administered by the economics department.

____________________________

Dean Reminding Economics Department about Information Request

May 6, 1953

Memorandum to Professor [Charles Andrew] Myers:

I asked Ralph [Evans Freeman] a while ago to get me some information but have not heard from him and imagine it got left and wonder if you could undertake this survey for me in the near future and give me an answer.

The problem is that those of us who were worried about the English style of our students at M.I.T. are pretty certain that we will never get a good overall performance on the mere basis of instruction in the first two years where writing is required and read and criticized. The burden of continuously upholding the standard obviously is going to rest with the professional departments and I have no doubt there are great inconsistencies in this throughout the Institute, and I also have no doubt most of them are pretty remiss in this obligation.

Before starting any campaign on this question, however, it is obvious that I need to know whether the house of my own School is in point of fact in order, or if not how far it is out of order.

I accordingly asked Professor [Howard Russell] Bartlett and Professor [Ralph] Freeman to get me an indication of the amount of writing required in the various subjects which might be elected by students in the School. In the History Department this was obviously limited to non-professional subjects and for the moment I am more interested in the general electives in the Department of Economics than I am in what policing you do of your own majors. It would be more helpful to know about both.

What Professor Bartlett did was write me a general answer which told me how many papers were required each semester, the approximate length, and how many written examinations. I wonder if it would be possible for you to dig out the same information for the various appropriate subjects in the Department of Economics and report to me fairly soon. I would like to be thinking about this problem during the summer.

Sincerely yours,
[unsigned]
John E. Burchard
Dean of Humanities and Social Studies

Jeb/h

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Economics Department’s First Response to Dean’s Request for Information

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Industrial Relations Section
Department of Economics and Social Science
Cambridge, Massachusetts

May 11, 1953

Memorandum to Dean John E. Burchard

Dear John:

This is in answer to your memorandum of May 6th. I guess this is something Ralph was unable to compete before he left and I thought I should get done promptly since I will be leaving tomorrow for the annual research meeting of the Committee on Labor Market Research of the Social Science Research Council in Minneapolis. George Shultz is one of the invited guests.

Perhaps the best way to answer your question is to list what the various people in charge of the various undergraduate subjects reported:

14.01 [Economic Principles I] ([Robert Lyle] Bishop) — 3 or 4 written hour examinations, mostly of the essay type
14.02 [Economic Principles II] ([Edgar Carey] Brown) — 4 written hour examinations, no term papers
14.03 [Prices and Production] ([Robert Lyle] Bishop) — 2 to 3 hour examinations; no term papers
14.09 [Economic Problems Seminar] ([Paul Anthony] Samuelson) — no written exams, but 2 written papers, one long and one short, plus oral presentation of the content of the paper prior to the submission of the written paper
14.51 [International Relations] ([Norman Judson] Padelford) — 8 written quizzes of 35 to 40 minutes in length; no term paper, except that sometimes there are written projects.
14.61 [Industrial Relations] (Doug [Douglass Vincent] Brown and [John Royston] Coleman) — 3 hour examinations and 3 written case reports
14.63 [Labor Relations] ([George Pratt] Shultz) — 3 written hour examinations and one term paper
14.64 [Labor Economics and Public Policy] ([George Benedict] Baldwin) — 3 hour examinations and one written term paper
14.70 [Introductory Psychology] ([George Armitage] Miller) — 2 or 3 written hour examinations, partly objective in character; no term paper
14.72 [Union-Management Relations] ([Joseph Norbert] Scanlon) — 2 hour examinations and a special paper on a particular case
14.73 [Organization and Communications in Groups] ([Alex] Bavelas and [Herbert Allen] Shepard) — 2 objective-type examinations and one written essay-type examination
14.75 [Experimental Psychology] ([Joseph Carl Robnett] Licklider) — no examinations, but a written paper on the experiment, suitable for publication — this latter test is never quite met but students are expected to write with that end in view
14.77 [Psychology of Communication] ([George Armitage] Miller) — 3 objective-type examinations
14.91 and 14.92 [The American Political System;
Comparative Political and Economic Systems]		 ([Jesse Harris] Proctor and [Roy] Olton) — 3 written hour exams, no term paper in the first term — 3 written hour exams plus a written term paper in the second term
15.30 [Personnel Administration] ([Paul] Pigors) — 4 written cases, one term paper and one hour examination

 

I think this pretty well covers the principal courses which are taken by undergraduate students in other departments. I think my own experience in teaching such undergraduate courses as 14.61 and 14.63 is similar to that of most of the staff, in that I have called attention to students of misspelled words, poor grammar, and generally poor organization and expression of written answers and papers. I really doubt if we can do much more or should do much more. It would be quite a task to go over each written examination with each student in detail, or even to do this after they have submitted a term paper. From time to time I have done this with some theses but not as a general rule, since the student is warned in advance that his grade will depend not only on content, but on expression.

I hope this gives you the information you need.

Sincerely
[signed] Charlie
Charles A. Myers

m:g

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Follow-up Request by Dean

May 12, 1953

Memorandum to Professor Myers

Dear Charlie:

Your memorandum of yesterday answers my question about the writing in part.

I guess I agree, though I wish I didn’t have to, that people in the department cannot be expected to act as writing critics for students who are still defective in their English. Though I wish more people required papers and fewer examinations, this is obviously a matter of individual teachers’ methods.

The remaining question which I think is not answered is I believe a critical one, namely, does poor writing really result in a lower grade, and if it does is that single comment written on to the paper when it is returned with the grade to the student?

I hate to trouble you further but wonder if you would be able to explore this with the same group of people.

Sincerely yours,
[unsigned]
John E. Burchard
Dean of Humanities and Social Studies

Jeb/h

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Economics Department’s Response to Follow-up Request by the Dean

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Industrial Relations Section
Department of Economics and Social Science
Cambridge, Massachusetts

June 1, 1953

Memorandum to Dean John E. Burchard

Dear John:

These are some further thoughts on your memo of May 12th, asking me to check again on whether poor writing really results in a lower grade in our courses and whether comments are written on the papers when they are returned with grades to the students.

Nearly everyone with whom I have talked here agrees that poor writing does result in a lower grade, if by “poor writing” is meant poor organization, hasty sentence construction, and confusing or fuzzy thinking as expressed in written words. Poor spelling apparently does not count so much, although Bob Bishop and I specifically do encircle misspelled words on written exams and papers. Comments on poor organization, etc., are specifically written on papers and exams when returned to students, and I know that many of us have stressed to students before writing exams and papers that their grades will depend in part on the way in which their material is organized and presented.

One further experience might be of interest in connection with your comment that you wish more people would require papers and fewer examinations. During the past term Jim Baldwin gave term papers in 14.64 and found that the pressure of senior theses on the students was so great that they did a very poor job on the papers. His grades reflect this, but he is bothered about the apparent conflict between the senior thesis and the term paper requirement in senior Humanities and Social Studies courses. Maybe we ought to place more emphasis on good writing in the senior thesis in the Department and in other Departments.

Sincerely,
[signed] Charlie
Charles A. Myers

CAM:dg

Source: M.I.T., Institute Archives and Special Collections, School of Humanities and Social Sciences. Office of the Dean, Records, 1934-1964. Box 3, Folder “103, Economics Department, General, March 1951-1956”.
For [first and middle names of instructors] and [course titles]: Course Catalogue of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1952-53.

Image Source: (Left) John Burchard ; (Right) Charles A. Myers. MIT Museum Legacy Website (People Collection).

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
Economists M.I.T. Regulations

MIT. Graduate Economics Program and Fellowships. 1950-51

Already by the academic year 1950-51 the M.I.T. economics department could boast seven economics professors who would still be around over a quarter of a century later, including Samuelson, Solow and Kindleberger. The printed departmental brochure along with a one-page announcement of twelve graduate fellowships, presumably sent to be posted on college and university bulletin boards, have been transcribed for this posting. Minor changes in formatting have been used to enhance readability.

 _________________________

 

Graduate Work in the Department of Economics and Social Science
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

 

THE PROGRAM

 

Our program in Economics is confined to students for the doctorate who are primarily interested in advanced study and research in

Economic Theory
Industrial Economics
Industrial Relations
International Economics
Statistics

We have an active program of continuing research in each of these fields and should like to invite a selected group of graduate students to participate with us in our explorations after they have completed their requirements for the general examinations here.

The work in Economic Theory is under the leadership of Professor Paul A. Samuelson. This includes, in addition to price analysis, the study of national income determination and business cycles. Research in these fields has been vigorous in recent years, and our objective is to train economists capable of understanding and appraising the results of this research and of adding to our empirical and theoretical understanding of these areas.

Industrial Economics, under the guidance of Professors W. Rupert Maclaurin and Max Millikan, is concerned primarily with the economic problems of the individual firm and of particular industries. The work should be enriched by the active research program now under way in the Department on “the economics of innovation,” “the process of business decisions,” and “the economics of the size of the firm.” We are anxious to have some advanced students who would like to participate in these research programs which are being worked out through “laboratory-type” collaboration of particular firms and industries.

Industrial Relations, under the leadership of Professors Charles A. Myers and Douglass V. Brown, is concerned with investigating the fundamentals of labor-management relations in modern industrial society. In addition to basic work in Economics, the program of study centers upon courses in Labor Economics, Collective Bargaining, Public Policy in Labor Relations, Personnel Administration, Social Psychology and Human Relations. A number of research projects are carried on by the Industrial Relations Section, which is a division of the Department.

Our work in International Economics is under the direction of Professors Charles P. Kindleberger and Richard M. Bissell, Jr. (who returns in June to M.I.T. from his position as Deputy Administrator of ECA). Emphasis in International economics is shared between the traditional fields of international trade and finance and that of national economic development. The training is designed to qualify the student for work in departments of government, including international institution., concerned with foreign and international economic problems. While no specialized courses are offered in the practical aspects of foreign trade, it is believed that the broad training will be regarded with increasing interest by American business concerns to aid them in the solution of their complex problems relating to foreign operations.

Instruction in Statistics, under Professor Harold Freeman, is largely centered in three areas: general theoretical statistics; probability and its foundations; modern theories of time series and prediction, particularly as applied in Economics. Some of the courses in these areas are given by the Departments of Economics and some by the Department of Mathematics. Courses are offered at elementary, intermediate, advanced and research seminar levels.

While there is ample opportunity at M.I.T. for the student interested in any one of these five fields to go as far as he wishes with his subject, there is also a common core of basic courses which the student will be expected to take in preparation for his general examinations.

We are also attempting to introduce greater realism into our program by operating a “practice school” in the summer between the first and second years of graduate study, in which we try to arrange internship experience in industry. This activity is under the guidance of Professor Paul Pigors.

For those who are going into university teaching, some pre-doctoral teaching experience will be encouraged and a considerable number of teaching fellowships will be available to students after they have completed their first year.

 

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO GRADUATE STUDENTS

For the year 1950-51 we will offer up to five fellowships of $2,500, available to outstanding students in the fields mentioned above. These include the Westinghouse Educational Fellowship and the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Fellowship.

In addition, about eight fellowships and teaching scholarships will be available, ranging up to $1,600. This group includes the Clarence J. Hicks Memorial Fellowship in Industrial Relations, given by Industrial Relations Counselors, Inc., of New York.

 

REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION

(a) General requirements: S.B. or A.B. degree with a good academic record from a university of recognized standing. Special emphasis will be placed on recommendations from professors or administrative officers of the college. Only students with high qualifications will be admitted.

(b) Course requirements: Three full-year college courses in social science chosen from the fields of Economics, Psychology, Sociology and History. One full-year course in college mathematics (including at least a half-year of calculus) and a full-year course in college physics are required. However, students who have had no Physics can make up this deficiency by taking a special one-semester course at the Institute. In special cases a deficiency in calculus may also be satisfied in this manner.

At the end of the second year the candidate will normally take a general examination chosen from such fields as the following: Economic Theory, Industrial economics, Economics of Innovation, Labor Economics and Labor Relations, Human Relations, Personnel administration Statistical Methods and Theory, Economic Fluctuations and Fiscal Policy, and International Economics.

Following the Institute rules the candidate for the doctor’s degree will be required to take a minor in a related filed. Possibilities include: Business Administration, History, Regional Planning, Mathematics, or any of the technical fields of specialization at the Institute in which the student is qualified to participate. Exchange arrangements between M.I.T. and Harvard University also make it possible for graduate students at either institution to take advance work at the other without extra tuition.

In addition, the candidate for the Ph.D. degree must meet the usual language and thesis requirements.

 

FURTHER INFORMATION

Those persons who are interested in learning more about the program or who wish to obtain application blanks for fellowships to aid in financing such graduate work may direct inquiries to Professor Robert L. Bishop, Department of Economics and Social Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

 

INSTRUCTING STAFF
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE

Ralph Evans Freeman, M. A., B. Litt.
Professor of Economics; in charge of the Department

Donald Skeele Tucker, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics

William Rupert Maclaurin, D.C.S.
Professor of Economics

Norman Judson Padelford, Ph.D., LL.D.
Professor of International Relations

Paul Anthony Samuelson, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics

Richard Mervin Bissell, Jr., Ph.D.
Professor of Economics

Charles Andrew Myers, Ph.D.
Professor of Industrial Relations

Paul Pigors, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Industrial Relations

Harold Adolph Freeman, S.B.
Associate Professor of Statistics

Charles Poor Kindleberger, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Economics

Max Franklin Millikan, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Economics

Alex Bavelas, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology

Robert Lyle Bishop, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Economics

Edgar Cary Brown, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Economics

Morris Albert Adelman, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Economics

George Pratt Shultz, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Industrial Relations

Robert Solow, M.A.
Assistant Professor of Statistics

Lecturer

Joseph Norbert Scanlon

Instructors

John Royston Coleman, M.A.
Stanley Martin Jacks, A.B., LL.B.
James Earnest Boyce, A.M.
Louis Cass Young, S.M.
John Lang Rawlinson, A.M.
Gilbert Koreb Krulee, S.B., M.Ed.
Roy Olton, M.A.
Herman Thomas Skofield, M.A.
Jesse Harris Proctor, Jr., M.A.

Research Associates

Robert Keen Lamb, Ph.D.
Kingman Brewster, Jr., LL.B.
Peter Robert Hofstaetter, Ph.D.

Research Assistants

William Theodore Bluhm, M.A.
Sidney Layton Smith, S.M.

Teaching Fellows

Hugh Gilbert Lovell, B.A.
Jack Dean Rogers, B.S., M.B.A.

Assistants

Ralph Haskel Bergmann, A.B.
Kenneth Alden Bohr, S.M.
Daniel Monroe Colyer, B.A.
Harold Emil Dreyer, B.S.
David Allen Eberly, S.B.
Herman Gadon, A.B.
Stuart Lee Knowlton, A.B.
Walter Sparks Measday, A.B.
Beatrice Allen Rogers, A.B., S.B.
George Joseph Strauss, B.A.

Librarian

Barbara Klingenhagen, A.B.

 _________________________

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Department of Economics and Social Science

Graduate Fellowship
1950 – 1951

 

In the year 1950-1951 M.I.T. will offer:

Up to five fellowships of $2,500 for students in the following fields:

Economic Theory
Industrial Economics
Industrial Relations
International Economics
Statistics

Up to seven fellowships with stipends up to $1,600 for specialization in these same fields.

Fellowships are available to students who wish to undertake a program of graduate work in Economics leading to the degree of doctor of philosophy. Applicants should have an A.B. or S. B. degree or anticipate the award of such a degree not later than July 1, 1950. Fellowships are awarded for one year, with possibility of renewal. They include the Westinghouse Educational Fellowship , the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Fellowship and the Clarence J. Hicks Memorial Fellowship in Industrial Relations, given by the Industrial Relations Counselors, Inc., of New York.

Fellowships are offered to those who seek career opportunities in university teaching and research, in industrial concerns in this country or abroad, in research departments of unions, and in government agencies concerned with the regulation of industry.

The Institute’s close contacts with industry, and the development within the Department of Economics and Social Science of specialized work in economic theory, the economics of innovation, industrial relations, statistics, and international economics have created a suitable environment for advanced study and research in these particular fields.

Teaching fellowships are also available; but these are normally reserved for second and third-year students.

Requests for further information or for application blanks should be addressed to Professor Robert L. Bishop, Department of Economics and Social Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Applications should be filed by March 15, 1950.

 _________________________

Source: MIT Archives. Office of the President. Records, 1930-1959. Box 77 (AC4/77), Folder 10: Economics Department 1934-49.

Image Source: MIT, Technique, 1949.