Tag: Tobin

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.

Categories
Chicago Economists Yale

Chicago. James Tobin Autobiographical Letter from Faculty Meeting, 1950

The following autobiographical remarks by James Tobin were circulated among the University of Chicago faculty before its Monday, February 13, 1950 meeting. After discussing the “Old Business” of the Committee Report on Ph. D. Thesis requirements and Departmental policy on library acquisitions, a third item added by hand to the mimeographed agenda was “C. Appointment (Tobin)”. 

Cf. the Search Committee report on Tobin from Columbia University, also from 1950.

Robert Dimand has recently published the book James Tobin in the Palgrave Macmillan series Great Thinkers in Economics.

A list of major works and Tobin-related links are at the Gonseca History of Economic Thought Website.

_____________________________________

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….

_____________________________________

TO: Professor T. W. Schultz

DATE: January 27, 1950

FROM: J. Marschak

 

Following our conversation on Tuesday, I attach 20 copies of the biography of James Tobin, with the request that they be circulated among the members of the Department.

Please note that Tobin’s article “Tax Measures to Encourage Saving” has been published in the meantime in the recent issue of the American Economic Review.

Sincerely yours,

Jacob Marschak

 

 

JAMES TOBIN. (Letter of April 2, 1949)

I was born March 5, 1918, in Champaign, Illinois, attended the local schools and the University of Illinois High School. I went to Harvard College on a National Scholarship and was graduated in 1939. I majored in economics in college, and did two years of graduate work in economics at Harvard 1939-41. I worked at Washington at OPACS and WPB from June 1941 to April 1942, when I went into the Navy and served as a line officer on a destroyer. I was “separated” in January 1946 and returned to Harvard to write a thesis. I was a part-time teaching fellow until I received the degree of Ph. D. I am married and have one child, aged 8 months.

I have indicated my training in economics in the previous paragraph: it is better than my mathematical background. In college I had two years of calculus, and as a graduate student I took a half-year course in mathematical statistics and a half-year course in mathematical economics. One of my chief occupations as a Junior Fellow has been to try to improve my mathematical equipment, by attending some courses and by independent work. I have studied advanced calculus, probability, differential equations, modern algebra.

Publications: “Note on the Money Wage Problem,” QJE, LV, 1941, 508-15. “The Role of Statistical Forecasts in Planning for Defense,” Public Policy, III, 1942, 197-223. “Liquidity Preference and Monetary Policy,” Rev. Ec. Stat., XXIX, 1947, 124-131. “Rejoinder” (to Clark Warburton, on same subject), ibid., XXX, 1948, 314-317. “Money Wage Rates and Employment,” in The New Economics, 572-587. “The Fallacies of Lord Keynes’ ‘General Theory’” (By Jaccques Rueff): Comment,” QJE, LXII, 1948, 763-770. A note on “Tax Measures to Encourage Saving” will be published in the AER later this year.

My thesis was entitled “A Theoretical and Statistical Analysis of Consumer Saving.” In it I attempted to derive a saving function by using both budget data and time series—a device suggested by you—and to bring in variables other than income: asset holdings, capital gains, price level. An article based on the thesis is promised for the projected volume in honor of John H. Williams. I am very much interested in the problems involved in obtaining statistical demand functions and am at present completing work on one for food, again using both budget data and time series.

 

Source: Hoover Institution Archives, Milton Friedman Papers, Box 79, Folder 2 “University of Chicago Minutes, Economics Department, 1949-1953”.

Image Source: Yale University Manuscripts & Archives. Digital Images Database. “James Tobin in war uniform (1945-December)”.

Categories
Economists Exam Questions M.I.T.

MIT. Final Exam in Graduate Macro I. Stanley Fischer, 1975

Welcome to my blog, Economics in the Rear-View Mirror. If you find this posting interesting, here is the list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have already assembled for you to sample or click on the search icon in the upper right to explore by name, university, or category. You can subscribe to my blog below.  There is also an opportunity to comment below….

______________________

Today another posting from the more recent history of economics for that professor who succeeded where others had failed before him, namely in first teaching me the economic intuition behind macroeconomic models, Stanley Fischer. While James Tobin had succeeded in convincing the undergraduate me of the utter importance of getting macroeconomic policy right, I was still much too immature to “receive wisdom” as a sophomore…but enough about me.

I thought of Stan Fisher this morning as I read his marvelous summary of his own 55 years of experience with macroeconomics.

I earlier posted Fischer’s reading list for his undergraduate course at the University of Chicago in 1973. Below is the exam from the first half-semester course in the required four quarter sequence in macroeconomics for the cohort that entered MIT in the Fall of 1974, the cohort that included Paul Krugman, Jeffrey Frankel, Francesco Giavazzi, Andrew Abel, Dick Startz, to name only a few, sandwiched between Olivier Blanchard’s and Ben Bernanke’s respective cohorts.

_________________________________

 

Spring 1975

Final Exam 14.451

Stanley Fischer

Time available is two hours. Answer all questions. You have a choice on question 2.

  1. (50 points) it is sometimes asserted that the key to the effectiveness of monetary policy is the fixed nominal return on money. Suppose that means were devised of paying interest on money and that the nominal bond interest rate were fixed in an arbitrary level.
    1. Using any convenient variant of a three asset (money, bonds, capital) model, explain the determination of asset market equilibrium and then of the overall equilibrium of the economy, under the assumption of a fixed bond interest and a rate market-determined money interest rate. (Maintain this assumption here after.)
    2. Analyze the consequences of an open market purchase for the interest rate on money and other endogenous variables. What are the differences between your results and those in the more usual model in which the bond interest rate varies?
    3. Suppose a helicopter dropped bonds on the populace. What happens to the interest rate on money and other endogenous variables?
    4. What do you make of the assertion mentioned in the first sentence of this question in the light of your answers to (ii) and (iii) and/or in the light of any other relevant considerations?
    5. Extra credit (5 points max). Can you envision any type of institutional arrangements which make the premise of this question — fixed bond interest rate and market determined interest rate on money — empirically reasonable?

 

  1. Answer A or B (30 points each)

A.

  1. What theoretical reasons are there to assume the demand for money is a function of the interest rate?
  2. Why does it matter?
  3. Review relevant empirical evidence.
  4. Discuss any econometric difficulties of the empirical work.

 

B.

A household has the utility of wealth function

U(W) = W (b/2)W2.

Its initial wealth is W0.
It can hold in its portfolio a safe asset paying a safe rate of return of our rB in the risky asset paying rE+g, where rE is the expected return and sg2 is the variance of return.

    1. Derive demand functions as a function of rB, rE, sg2, and W0.
    2. Suppose that a tax on next period’s wealth is announced, at rate t, i.e. t% of wealth at the beginning of next period will be paid to the government. What effect does this have on the asset demands? Can you give an intuitive explanation?
    3. Suppose instead that positive returns on the risky assets are taxed at a rate t, but not negative returns. Thus if A2 is the holding of the risky asset, the tax is tA2(rE + g) if rE +g > 0 and zero otherwise. The return on the safe asset is not taxed. What effect does this have on asset demands?

 

  1. (20 points)
      1. Define free reserves.
      2. Define excess reserves.
      3. What effect would Federal Reserve System payment of interest on reserves held at FR banks have on the demand for reserves? (Use any appropriate model, and assumed the rate on reserves as fixed below the rate on short-term government securities and the discount rate.)
      4. What effect would these interest payments have on the money multiplier? (For simplicity, assume there is only one type of deposit in existence.)
      5. It is sometimes said that payment of interest on reserves would strengthen Fed control over the money stock. Can you justify or refute this view?

 

Source: Irwin Collier.

Image Source: MIT Museum.

Categories
Suggested Reading Syllabus Yale

Yale. Graduate Course Keynesian Economics, Tobin. 1951-52

James Tobin came to Yale in 1950 at the rank of associate professor following his three years as a Junior Fellow of Harvard’s Society of Fellows that included a research stay at Richard Stone’s Department of Applied Economics in Cambridge. His Yale graduate course on “Aggregative Theory” covered contemporary Keynesian macroeconomics at mid-century.

This picture in his navy uniform is dated December 1945 according to the Yale archives.

_______________________________

Economics 110: 1951-52

1. Introduction to Model-building. Equilibrium Systems and their Stability

T. C. Schelling, National Income Behavior, Chs. 2, 3, 4 (pp 41-2), 5, 12.
R. G. D. Allen, Mathematical Analysis for Economists, Sections 2.9, 11.6, 11.7.
P. A. Samuelson, Foundations of Economic Analysis, Chs. I, II, and pp. 257-260.
Schelling, pp. 42-52.

2. The Keynesian and Classical Aggregative Models

J. R. Hicks, “Mr. Keynes and the Classics; a Suggested Interpretation”, Econometrica, V, 1937, p. 147.
R. F. Harrod, “Keynes and Traditional Theory” Econometrica, V, 1937 (reprinted, in The New Economics, p. 591.)
F. Modigliani, “Liquidity Preference and the Theory of Interest and Money” Econometrica, XII, 1944.
O. Lange, “The Rate of Interest and the Optimum Propensity to Consume” Economica, 1938 (reprinted in Readings in Business Cycle Theory, p. 169.
L. R. Klein, The Keynesian Revolution, Ch. III.

J. E. Meade, “A Simplified Model of Keynes’ System”, Review of Economic Studies, February 1937 (reprinted in The New Economics, p. 606)
Samuelson, Foundations, pp. 276-283.

W. Leontief, “The Fundamental Assumption of Keynes’ ‘General Theory’” Quarterly Journal of Economics, LI, 1936, p. 192.
W. Leontief, “Postulates: Keynes’ General Theory and the Classicists,” The New Economics, p. 232.

L. R. Klein, The Keynesian Revolution, 199-206.
J. Marschak, Income, Employment, and the Price Level, Lectures 18, 19, 20, Supplementary Lectures II, III.

3. The Consumption Function

a. Asset Holdings and the “Pigou Effect”

A. C. Pigou, “The Classical Stationary State”, EJ, 1943, 343-351.
M. Kalecki, “Professor Pigou on ‘The Classical Stationary State’—A Comment”, EJ 1944, 131-2.
Pigou, “Economic Progress in a Stable Environment”, E, 1947, 180-90.
Don Patinkin, “Price Flexibility and Full Employment”, AER 1948, 543-64 and Comment by H. Stein and Reply by Patinkin, AER 1949, 725-8.
Klein, 206-213
[Handwritten addition:] G. Ackley, “The Wealth-Saving Relationship”, JPE 1951, 154-161.

b. Problems of Aggregation

Klein, 192-196.
Staehle, “Short-period Variations in the Distribution of Incomes,” REStat 1937, 133-143, and 1939, 129-30.
Marschak, “Personal and Collective Budget Functions” REStat 1939, 161-70.
T. Haavelmo, “Family Expenditures and the Marginal Propensity to Consume”, Ec 1947, 335-341.
J. S. Duesenberry, Income, Saving and the Theory of Consumer Behavior, Chapters III, IV.
H. Lubell, “Effects of Income Redistribution on Consumers’ Expenditures” AER 1947, 157-170 and 930-1.
D. Brady and R. Friedman, “Savings and the Income Distribution”, Studies in Income and Wealth, X, 247-265.

c. The “secular” and “cyclical” functions

A. H. Hansen, Economic Policy and Full Employment, Ch. XIV.
A. H. Hansen, “A Note on the Secular Consumption Function” AER 1950, 662-4.
F. Modigliani, “Fluctuations in the Saving-Income Ratio” Studies in Income and Wealth, XI, 371-443.
J. S. Duesenberry, op. cit., Chapters III, IV, V.
L. Metzler, “Three Lags in the Circular Flow of Income”, in Income, Employment, and Public Policy (in honor of Hansen), 11-32.
R. P. Mack, “The Direction of Change in Income and the Consumption Function”, REStat, 1948, 239-258.

4. Liquidity Preference and the Theory of Interest

T. Wilson, Fluctuations in Income and Employment, Chapters I, II.
D. H. Robertson, Essays in Monetary Theory, Ch. I.
D. H. Robertson, “Some Notes on the Theory of Interest” in Money, Trade, and Economic Growth (in honor of J. H. Williams) 193-209.
A. H. Hansen, Monetary Theory and Fiscal Policy, Chapters 3, 4.
W. Fellner, Monetary Policies and Full Employment, Chapters V, VI.
N. Kaldor, “Speculation and Economic Stability” RES Oct. 1939, 1-27.
M. Kalecki, “The Short-Term and the Long-term Rate of Interest” Studies in Economic Dynamics, 32-46.
J. R. Hicks, Value and Capital, Chapters XI, XII, XIII.
P. A. Samuelson, Foundations, 122-4.
T. Scitovsky, “A Study of Interest and Capital” E 1940, 293-317.
A. Smithies, “Process Analysis and Equilibrium Analysis” EC 1942, 26-38.
[Handwritten addition:] L. Metzler, “Wealth, Saving, and the Rate of Interest”, JPE 1951, 93-113.

5. The Investment Function

Klein, 196-199.
Wilson, op. cit., Chapters V, VI, VII.
N. Kaldor, “A Model of the Trade Cycle” EJ 1940, 78-92.
M. Kalecki, “A New Approach to the Problem of Business Cycles” RES, Vol. XVI, 1949-50, 57-64.
A. P. Lerner, The Economics of Control, Chapter 25.
R. M. Goodwin, “Econometrics in Business-Cycle Analysis” in Hansen, Business Cycles and National Income, 442-449 (rest of chapter will be assigned later)
M. Kalecki, “The Principle of Increasing Risk”, Essays in the Theory of Economic Fluctuations, 95-106.

H. D. Henderson, “The Significance of the Rate of Interest” OEP #1, October 1938, 1-13.
J. Meade and P. W. S. Andrews, “Summary of Replies to Questions on the Effects of Interest Rates” OEP #1, October 1938, 14-31.
R. S. Sayers, “Business Men and the Terms of Borrowing” OEP #3, Feb. 1940, 23-31.
P.W. S. Andrews, “A Further Inquiry into the Effects of Rates of Interest”, OEP #3, Feb. 1940, 32-73.

K. Arrow, “Alternative Approaches to the Theory of choice in Risk-taking Situations” EC October 1951.

 

End of First Term

Abbreviations:

AER:                American Economic Review
EJ:                   Economic Journal
E:                     Economica
EC:                  Econometrica
QJE:                 Quarterly Journal of Economics
JPE:                 Journal of Political Economy
OEP:                Oxford Economic Papers
RES:                Review of Economic Studies
REStat:            Review of Economic(s and) Statistics

_______________________________

 

Economics 110
Reading List for Second Term: Dynamic Aggregative Theory

1. The Meaning of “Dynamics”

Samuelson, “Dynamic Process Analysis,” in Survey of Contemporary Economics, 352-355, 374-376.
Frisch, “On the Notion of Equilibrium and Disequilibrium,” Review of Economic Studies, 1935-36, 100-106.
Samuelson, Foundations of Economic Analysis, 311-320, 350-355.
Harrod, Towards a Dynamic Economics, 1-19.

[Handwritten marginal comment: Baumol? Schelling?]

2. The Mathematics of Dynamics

Samuelson, “Dynamic Process Analysis,” 356-367, 377-387.
Tinbergen, Business Cycles in the U.S.A. 1919-1932, 15-18, 140-147.

Suggested for further study:
Allen, Mathematical Analysis for Economists, Chapter XVI.
Samuelson, Foundations, Appendix B.
[Handwritten addition:] Schelling, Appendix.

3. The Nature and Logic of Dynamic Business Cycle Theory

Tinbergen, “Econometric Business Cycle Research”, in Readings in Business Cycle Theory.
Samuelson, Foundations, 335-342.
Frisch, “Propagation Problems and Impulse Problems in Dynamic Economics”, Economic Essays in Honour of Gustav Cassel, 171-206.
Tinbergen, “Annual Survey: Quantitative Business Cycle Theory”, Econometrica, 1935, 241-308.
Schumpeter, Business Cycles, 179-192, 533-535.

4. The Short-run Stability of Aggregative Models

Samuelson, Foundations, 257-269, 276-283.
Kaldor, “A Model of the Trade Cycle,” Economic Journal, 1940, 78-92.
Smithies, “Process Analysis and Equilibrium Analysis,” Econometrica, 1942, 26-38.
Metzler, “Three Lags in the Circular Flow of Income,” in Income, Employment, and Public Policy (Essays in Honor of Alvin H. Hansen).
Metzler, “The Nature and Stability of Inventory Cycles,” Review of Economic Statistics, 1941, 113-129.

5. Capital Accumulation and Growth

Domar, “Capital Expansion, Rate of Growth, and Employment,” Econometrica, 1946, 137-148.
Domar, “Expansion and Employment,” American Economic Review, 1947, 42-55.
Harrod, “An Essay in Dynamic Theory”, Economic Journal 1939, 14-33.
Fellner, Monetary Policies and Full Employment, Chapter II.
Schelling, “Capital Growth and Equilibrium,” American Economic Review, 1947, 864-876.
Alexander, “The Accelerator as a Generator of Steady Growth,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1949, 174-197.

6. Capital Accumulation and Cycles

Samuelson, “Interaction between the Multiplier Analysis and the Principle of Acceleration,” in Readings in Business Cycle Theory, 261-269.
Kalecki, Essays in the Theory of Economic Fluctuations, 116-149.
(Suggested: Kalecki, “A Macrodynamic Theory of Business Cycles,” Econometrica, 1935, 327-344.)
Hicks, The Trade Cycle.
Leontief, “Recent Developments in the Study of Interindustrial Relationships, American Economic Review (Proceedings), Mar. 1949, 211-225.
Georgescu-Roegen, “Relaxation Phenomena in Linear Dynamic Models,” in Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation, (Cowles Commission Monograph 13).

7. The Dynamic Theory of Inflation

Keynes, How to Pay for the War, 57-74.
Koopmans, “The Dynamics of Inflation,” Review of Economic Statistics, 1942, 53-65.
Smithies, “The Behavior of Money National Income under Inflationary Conditions”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1942-43, 113-128.
Duesenberry, “The Mechanics of Inflation,” Review of Economics of Statistics, Mar. 1950, 144-149.
Holzmann, “Income Determination in Open Inflation,” Review of Economics & Statistics, Mar. 1950, 150-158.

 

Source: Yale University Library, Manuscripts and Archives. James Tobin Papers, Box 18, Folder “Ec 103 [sic]” and “Ec 110, 1951-52].

 

Image Source: Yale University Manuscripts & Archives. Digital Images Database. “James Tobin in war uniform (1945-December)”.

 

Categories
Bibliography Courses Economists Exam Questions Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus Uncategorized

Harvard. Econ 113b. Schumpeter’s Grad Course on the History of Economics. 1940.

___________________________

Joseph Schumpeter offered this one semester, second term graduate course “History and Literature of Economics since 1776” nine times during the period 1940-1949. The core readings were basically unchanged. Below you will find the course enrollment figures and the reading list for 1940 (into which I have inserted the two additions from the reading list for 1941). Exam questions from 1940 and 1941 are included as well as an important research tip at the bottom of the posting. Nobel Laureates James Tobin and Robert Solow took this course in 1940 and 1947, respectively. I have gone to the trouble of providing links to almost the entire reading list as a public service to the history of economics community of scholars.

The (much reduced) reading list for the last time Schumpeter taught the course, Spring 1949 is transcribed in a later post.

___________________________

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….

___________________________

[Course Description: History and Literature of Economics since 1776]

Course work will mainly consist in critical study of the leading English, French, German and Italian contributions to economic thought in the nineteenth century. An introductory and a concluding series of lectures and discussions will provide the links with earlier and modern developments. Undergraduates who have passed Ec A are admitted without individual permission

Source: Joseph Schumpeter Papers, Harvard University Archives, HUG (FP) 4.62. Box 10 “Lecture Notes”, Folder “Ec 113, 1941”.

___________________________

Course Enrollment Statistics:

Grad. Students Seniors Juniors Radcliffe Other Total
1939-40 9 3 1 0 3 16
1940-41 11 2 0 3 1 17
1941-42 5 1 0 4 1 12
1942-43 10 3 0 6 3 22
1943-44 2 1 0 3 3 9
1944-45 Not offered
1945-46 18 2 5 25
1946-47 21 1 0 6 7 35
1947-48 17 4 0 2 7 30
1948-49 2 1 0 0 1 4

Note: The course number was Economics 113b until the academic year 1947-48, under the new course numbering system in 1948-49, it became Economics 213b. Joseph Schumpeter died in January 1950.

Source: Harvard/Radcliffe Online Historical Reference Shelf. Harvard President’s Reports.

___________________________

Economics 113b
[History and Literature of Economics since 1776]
1939-40
[second term]

 

I. For general reference you should currently consult:

Erich Roll, A History of Economic Thought (1939, [link to 1945 edition]), or
L. H. Haney, History of Economic Thought (1927).[1923 revised edition]

Suggestions:

John M. Keynes, Essays in Biography (Essays on Malthus, Marshall and Edgeworth).

 

II. Works dealing with the history of individual doctrines or problems. No assignment.

Suggestions:

E. Boehm-Bawerk, Capital and Interest, Vol. I.
E. Cannan, Theories of Production and Distribution (1924). [2nd ed., 1903]
F. W. Taussig, Wages and Capital (1896).
J. Viner, Studies in the Theory of International Trade (1937), Chs. I and II.
K. Marx, Theorien über den Mehrwehrt (1921). [1910 edition by Karl Kautsky: vol I, vol. II(1), vol. II(2), vol. III.]

 

III. This course covers many authors whose teaching is also dealt with in other courses and whose works are more or less familiar to every student. The most important of them are:

Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, also read the introduction to Cannan’s edition.
David Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy.
John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy; also read introduction to Ashley’s edition.
Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics, particularly Book V.
John B. Clark, Distribution of Wealth (1899).

Suggestions:

Augustin Cournot, Principles of the Theory of Wealth (Fisher’s edition, 1927).
Léon Walras, Element d’économie pure (edition definitive, 1926).
Knut Wicksell, Lectures on Political Economy (Robbins’ edition, 1934). [volume I, volume II]

 

IV. In addition, the following books should be read, at least cursorily:

Richard Cantillon, Essai sur la nature du commerce en général (1755); English translation by Higgs (1931).
David Hume, Political Discourses (edition by Green and Grose, 1875), Vol. I. [Miller edition]
Sir James Steuart, Principles of Political Economy (1767). [Vol I (1767); Vol II ]
A. R. J. Turgot, Réflexions sur la Formation et la Distribution des Richesses (1766), (Oeuvres, ed. Daire, 1844). Vol I; Vol II.
Thomas R. Malthus, Essay on the Principle of Population (1798). [1803 edition, enlarged]
Jean B. Say, Traité d’économie politique (1803). [2nd ed. 1814] [1855 English translation from 4th and 5th editions]
William N. Senior, Outline of the Science of Political Economy (1836).
William St. Jevons, Theory of Political Economy (1871).
J. E. Cairnes, Leading Principles.
Karl Marx, first volume of Das Kapital (English translation).

Suggestions:

J. H. v. Thünen, Der isolierte Staat (ed. Waentig, 1930).
R. Auspitz und R. Lieben, Untersuchungen über die Theorie des Preises (1888), (also translation into French). [Vol. I (French); Vol. II (French)]
Carl Menger, Grundsätze der Volkswirtschaftslehre (London School reprints, 1934). [English translation with introduction by F. A. Hayek]
F. Y. Edgeworth, Mathematical Psychics (London School reprints, 1932).
M. Longfield, Lectures on Political Economy (London School reprints, 1931).
H. C. Carey, The Past, the Present and the Future (1848).
H. George, Progress and Poverty (1879).
S. Newcomb, Principles of Political Economy (1885).
Ph. Wicksteed, The Commonsense of Political Economy (1908).

 

V. Monographs on individual authors. No assignments.

Suggestions:

[Addition to list in 1940-41: Henry Higgs, The Physiocrats (1897)]
W. R. Scott, Adam Smith as Student and Professor (1937).
J. Rae, Life of Adam Smith (1895).
J. Bonar, Malthus and his Work (1924). [1885 ed.]
M. Bowley, Nassau Senior and Classical Economics (1937).
F. Mehring, Karl Marx (1936).
J. R. Hicks, Leon Walras (Econometrica, 1934).
[Addition to list in 1940-41: H. W. Jevons and H. S. Jevons, “William S. Jevons,” Econometrica]

Source: Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Harvard University Archives, HUC 8522.2.1. Box 2, Folder “1939-40, 2 of (2)” and Folder “1940-41”.

___________________________

1939-1940
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 113b2

Answer any FOUR out of the following five questions:

  1. Discuss the wage-fund theory and its practical implications. In what sense was it resuscitated by Boehm-Bawerk and Taussig?
  2. Exponents of the Labor-Quantity theory of value and exponents of the Marginal Utility theory of value have for decades tried to refute each other. What is the true relation between the two theories?
  3. State and criticize the Marxian theory of Surplus Value or of Exploitation.
  4. What do you think of the so-called Ricardian theory of rent?
  5. What are the main objections that were raised against the “Austrian school” during the early stages of its development?

Final. 1940

 

Source: Joseph Schumpeter Papers, Harvard University Archives, HUG (FP) 4.62. Box 10 “Lecture Notes”, Folder “Ec 113, 1941”.

___________________________

1940-1941
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 113b2

One question may be omitted. Arrange your answers in the order of the questions.

  1. If a layman, trying to make intellectual conversation, asked you what Adam Smith’s performance consisted in, what would you say?
  2. What was the importance, for the economic theory of its time, of Malthus’ Essay on Population?
  3. Explain the meaning and use of the theorem usually referred to as Say’s Law.
  4. What are the conditions that would have to be fulfilled in order to make the labor-quantity theory of value true?
  5. State and discuss Ricardo’s version of the so-called law of the falling rate of profit.
  6. Jevons, Walras and Menger no doubt felt that they had revolutionized economic theory. What did this revolution consist in and how important do you think it was?
  7. Under modern conditions, most producers have no use for any significant part of their products. Hence their subjective valuation of these products depends on what these products will exchange for, that is to say, on their prices. How, then, can we derive these prices from utility schedules of buyers and sellers without reasoning in a circle?

Final. 1941.

Source: Joseph Schumpeter Papers, Harvard University Archives, HUG (FP) 4.62. Box 10 “Lecture Notes”, Folder “Ec 113, 1941”.

___________________________

Research Tip: 75 pages of student notes taken by future Nobel Laureate James Tobin for Economics 113b2 of the 1939-40 academic year are available in the James Tobin Papers at the Yale University Library Manuscripts Collection, Group No. 1746, Box. No. 6 in one of the hard-bound volumes of Tobin’s notes from his Harvard courses.

Image Source: Harvard Album, 1943.

Categories
Economists Funny Business M.I.T.

From the 200th Anniversary of Wealth of Nations Roast of Adam Smith at MIT. 1976

The Graduate Economics Association of MIT held a celebration in honor of Adam Smith and the 200th anniversary of the publication of The Wealth of Nations.  The event took place April 12, 1976 at the Sheraton Commander Hotel in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I chaired the organizing committee for the event that was run like a Friar’s Club Roast. It featured a star-studded cast that included Alan Blinder (Princeton), William Parker (Yale), Paul Samuelson (MIT), Robert Solow (MIT), and James Tobin (Yale) and special surprise guest-of-honor to receive the Invisible Hand Award, Adam Smith a.k.a. Jerry Goodman. Before Mr. Goodman entered dressed in Adam Smith attire, the MIT economics children’s choir (i.e. a sample of graduate students who could carry a tune, sort-of) sang the following hymn set to the tune of “Rock of Ages” with a new text written by my old professor of American economic history at Yale, William Parker.

_____________________

WEALTH OF NATIONS!

Text by William N. Parker

Wealth of Nations! Writ for me!
Let me hide myself in Thee.
Not the Profits, nor the Rent,
But the Labour Time that’s spent,
Be of Value the true source.
Make me better; no one worse.

Every man looks to his need,
Counting on the butcher’s greed.
Public goods are little prized,
Model that is dynamized.
Half the world is cold and bare,
Still we cling to Laissez-faire.

Hand invisible whose love
We believe that we can prove!
With thy panapoly of saints,
Mill, Ricardo, Marshall, Keynes,
Save us all from Marxist sins.
Keep us gaily making pins!

When our earthly race is run,
Will we soar to Samuelson?
Will we sink to realms below,
There to meet with our So-low?
Was it neo-classic myth?
Tell us, tell us, Adam Smith!
Wealth of Nations, write for me,

Let me hide myself in Thee!

Source: From the back of the program to the celebration.

Below, my autographed copy of the program:

Jerry Goodman’s journalistic attempt at making sense of the economists at play when he was observer-participant.

Image Sources: Portrait of William Parker from the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 151, No. 2, June 2007; Adam Smith program, personal copy; Jerry Goodman’s account from New York (May 3, 1976).

Categories
Courses Exam Questions Harvard Research Tip

Harvard. Course. Money, Banking, Commercial Crises, Williams and Gilbert 1937-38

 

The Harvard course, Economics 41 “Money, Banking, and Commercial Crises,” was a full-year course that James Tobin took as an undergraduate in 1937-38. Professor John H. Williams lectured during the first term and the vast bulk of lectures for the second term were held by Dr. Richard Vincent Gilbert (A.B., Harvard, 1923; Ph.D., Harvard, 1930. Dissertation: The theory of international payments). Associate Professor Seymour Harris does not appear anywhere in Tobin’s notes, so we can presume for now that Harris was substituted for by Williams and Gilbert and that the official enrollment report (see below) was the victim of a copy-paste error.

It appears from Tobin’s notes that Gilbert had been the section leader during the first term and was succeeded in the second term by the economics graduate student Kenyon Edward Poole (A.B., Harvard, 1929; A.M., Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy 1934) whose doctoral dissertation “German recovery policies, 1932-1937” was accepted in 1938., A.B., Harvard 1929. Tobin wrote in a marginal note to his own student notes (dated 1992) that the section that met February 16, 1938 “was Gilbert’s last section.” Thus presumably, the earlier sections must have been Gilbert’s doing.

Course enrollment, 1937-38
Course readings, first term
January Reading Period list
Mid-year examination
Course readings, second term
May Reading Period list
Final exam
Research tip

___________________________ 

Official Course Announcement
for Economics 41, 1937-38

For Undergraduates and Graduates.

Economics 41 (formerly 3). Money, Banking, and Commercial Crises
Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri., at 2. Professor Williams and Associate Professor Harris.

 

Source: Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XXXIV, No. 44. Announcement of the Courses of Instruction offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences during 1937-38. Second edition. October 1, 1937.

Copy in Harvard University Archives. HUC 8500.16. Box 5 “Courses of Instruction”, Folder “1937-38”, p. 149.

 

___________________________

Enrollment in Economics 41,
1937-38 by class

[Economics] 41.        (formerly 3). Professor Williams and Associate Professor Harris.—Money, Banking, and Commercial Crises.

Registered total: 205, of which 3 Graduates, 49 Seniors, 121 Juniors, 30 Sophomores, 2 “Candidates for the Bachelor’s Degree out-of-course”.

 

Source: Report of the President of Harvard College and reports of departments for 1937-38, p. 85.

 

___________________________

Economics 41, 1937-38:
First Term Reading List

Economics 41
Readings: First Term [Handwritten note: “Excluding Reading Period”]

  1. The nature and function of banking
    Dunbar: Theory and History of Banking, Chs. 1,2,3,4. [pp. 1-60]
    White, Money and Banking, Ch. 16 [pp. 349-372]
  2. Creation of Deposits
    Phillips, Bank Credit, Ch. 3. [pp. 32-77]
    Currie, Supply and Control of Money, Chs. 5-7. [pp. pp. 46-83]
  3. Note Issue
    Dunbar, Ch. 5. [pp. 50-81]
    Currie, Ch. 10 [pp. 110-115]
  4. Commercial Loan Theory
    Robertson, Money, Ch. 5 [pp. 92-117|; Currie, Ch. 4. [pp. 34-46]
  5. U.S. Banking history
    White, Chs. 18-23 [pp. 387-529]
  6. The Federal Reserve System
    Dunbar, Ch. 6 [pp. 81-110]
    Burgess, Federal Reserve Banks and the Money Market [pp. 1-327],
    entire Federal Reserve Bulletin, July 1935, Supply and Use of Member Bank Reserve Funds. [pp. 419-428]
    Currie, Chs. 8,9. [pp. 83-110]
    Hardy, Credit Policies of the Federal Reserve System, Chs. 3-11. [pp. 34-243]
  7. Recent Banking Changes
    White, Chs. 29, 30. [pp. 670-738]
  8. Foreign Banking Systems
    Dunbar, Chs. 8-10 [pp. 139-235]

Source: Harvard University Archives. HUC 8522.2.1. Box 10, Folder “Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1937-1938”.

 

Note: The page numbers were added to the 1937-38 readings in pencil for many items. In 1938-39, the identical titles plus pages were given for the same list of readings. The same information was copied by James Tobin into his course notes for 1937-38 (apparently correcting the page numbers listed for White under VII. to 679-738.)

 

___________________________

Economics 41, 1937-38:
Reading Period, January 1938

 

Economics 41: Read one of the following:

Hardy, Federal Reserve Policy.
Hawtrey, Art of Central Banking, pp. 116-303.
Keynes, Treatise on Money, Vol. II, Book VII.

 

Note: The Midyear Reading Period list for January 1938 was not found in the Course material folder archives, however for January 1936 and January 1939 the same three books were listed which we can presume constituted the choice of readings for January 1938. From Tobin’s notes for the course, he apparently chose the Hawtrey book.

 

___________________________

1937-38
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 41
MONEY AND BANKING
Mid-year Examination 1938.

Answer questions 1, 2 and three others.

  1. (One hour.) Supply and Use of Member Bank Reserve Funds.

(in millions of dollars.)

From
Dec. 1923 to July 1924

From
July 1924 to July 1925
Bills discounted

-430

+224
Bills bought

-332

+184
U.S. government securities

+389

-194
Other Reserve Bank credit

+9

+4
Monetary gold stock

+267

-144
Treasury and national bank currency

+9

-28
Money in circulation

-288

+36
Treasury cash and deposits with Federal Reserve banks

+18

-43
Non-member bank deposits

+9

-8
Other Federal Reserve accounts

-20

+7
Member bank reserve balances

+193

+54
    1. What is the meaning of each of the above items?
    2. Account for the changes in member bank reserve balances (or in bills discounted) in the two periods.
    3. What conclusions do you draw regarding the nature and instruments of Federal Reserve policy?
  1. Outline:
    1. Keynes’ views on the effectiveness of central banking control in England and the United States.
      (or)
    2. Hawtrey’s treatment of the development of central banking in England.
  2. “From the first, the banking system in this country has given expression to the American ideal of individuality and freedom.” Discuss
  3. Discuss the conflicting views of the role of banks in the creation of credit.
  4. Do banks create capital?
  5. Discuss the nature, purpose and wisdom of the provisions of the Federal Reserve Act concerning the issue of notes by the Federal Reserve banks.
  6. Discuss the merits of requiring the holding of reserves equal to a fixed percentage of deposits in the case of (a) central banks and (b) other banks.
  7. Discuss the relative effectiveness of open market operations and the rediscount rate as central bank instruments of control.
  8. What should be the central bank’s attitude towards the stock market?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Mid-year examinations, 1852-1943 (HUC 7000.55). Box 13: Mid-year Examinations, 1938. Papers printed for Mid-year Examinations [in] History, History of Religions,…,Economics,…,Military Science, Naval Science, January-February, 1938.

 

___________________________

Economics 41, 1937-38:
Second Term Reading List

[The following list of readings has been put together from Tobin’s class and reading notes for the course.]

Arthur D. Gayer—Monetary Policy and Economic Stabilization: A Study of the Gold Standard. 1935.
Fisher. Purchasing Power of Money, pp. 1-74 and 149-181.
Hawtrey. Currency and Credit, new ed. Chs 3-4.
Keynes. Treatise. Vol I, chs. 4,5,6 (Section 1), 7.
Hawtrey. Trade Depression and the Way Out
Foster and Catchings. Profits, Part 5
Haberler. Prosperity and Depression. Review of Theories.
Optional Keynes, ch 14 and ch on theory of inex numbers.
Taussig: International Trade: ch. 21. Adjustment on inconvertible paper.

 

Source: Yale University Library. Manuscripts Collections. James Tobin Papers. Group No. 1746, Box No. 6. Notes for Economics 41, 1937-38.

 

___________________________

Economics 41, 1937-38:
Reading Period, May 1938

Economics 41: Read one of the following:

  1. Royal Institute of International Affairs, The Future of Monetary Policy.
  2. International Chamber of Commerce, International Economic Reconstruction. Either Volume I or Volume II.
  3. Robbins, The Great Depression.
  4. Ohlin, Course and Phases of the World Depression, (League of Nations Study)
  5. Hansen, Economic Stabilization in an Unbalanced World.

 

Note: Tobin presumably chose this last item by Hansen since it is the last set of reading notes he included for the course.

Source: Harvard University Archives. HUC 8522.2.1. Box 10, Folder “Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1937-1938”.

 

___________________________

Economics 41, 1937-38:
Final Exam, June 1938

1937-38
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 41

  1. Discuss either (a) or (b).
    1. “Freedom of the exchange rates insulates the national economy against cyclical disturbances or monetary instability of foreign origin.”
    2. “A country which becomes a member of an international currency system, such as the gold standard provides, surrenders a part of its freedom of action, and assumes, along with the right to such benefits as it affords, certain very stern responsibilities.”
  2. Answer either (a) or (b).
    1. “Before 1914, changes in the value of gold were largely governed by the accident of gold discoveries or inventions bearing on methods of gold production.” Does the evidence support this view?
    2. Outline and criticize Fisher’s analysis of the factors determining the value of money.
  3. Discuss either (a) or (b).
    1. The underconsumption theories of the business cycle
    2. The investment theories of the business cycle.
  4. “One’s evaluation of a policy of flexible public works as an agency of economic stabilization depends upon the theory one holds of the fundamental nature of the business cycle.” Do you favor a policy of flexible public works? If so, on what grounds? If not, why not?
  5. Answer one of the following questions.
    1. Robbins’ views on the causes of the great depression.
    2. The Royal Institute of International Affairs’ analysis of the powers and limitations of the monetary authority.
    3. Hansen’s analysis of the breakdown of the international system in 1930-35.
    4. Gregory’s views on the major influences antagonistic to currency stabilization.
    5. Ohlin’s analysis of the causes of the great depression.
    6. Write a review of the book you read during the reading period.

Final. 1938.

 

Source: Yale University Library. Manuscripts Collections. James Tobin Papers. Group No. 1746, Box No. 6. Notes for Economics 41, 1937-38.

 

___________________________

Research Tip:

While at the Harvard Archives I came across Suggested Topics for Theses in Economics 41, 1938-39, HUC 8938.121.2. In it are listed 137 topics, each topic having between one to more than a dozen suggested references, running to 31 pages that includes twelve additional thesis subjects. The entire list of suggested topics with suggested references has been transcribed and posted!

___________________________

Image: My photo taken of a box of James Tobin’s notes as a student at Harvard. Not only are they bound, they have been cleanly copied in pen and are legible at the 99.9% confidence level.

Categories
Columbia Courses Economists Harvard Transcript

Columbia. Search Committee Report. 1950

This report is fascinating for a couple of reasons. The search committee understood its task to identify “the names of the most promising young economists, wherever trained and wherever located” from which a short list of three names for the replacement of Louis M. Hacker in Columbia College was selected. Organizationally, Columbia College is where undergraduate economics has been taught so that teaching excellence, including participation in Columbia College’s legendary Contemporary Civilization course sequence, was being sought as well as was potential for significant scholarship. Appendix C provides important information on James Tobin’s graduate economics education. In a later posting, I’ll provide information on others in the long-list of seventeen economists identified by the search committee.

___________________

January 9, 1950

 

Professor James W. Angell, Chairman
Department of Economics
Columbia University

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Committee appointed by you to canvass possible candidates for the post in Columbia College that is made available by the designation of Professor Louis M. Hacker as Director of the School of General Studies submits herewith its report.

As originally constituted, this committee was made up of Professors Taylor, Barger, Hart and Haig (chairman). At an early stage the membership was expanded to include Professor Stigler and from the beginning the committee had the advantage of the constant assistance of the chairman of the department.

In accordance with the suggestions made at the budget meeting in November, the committee has conducted a broad inquiry, designed to raise for consideration the names of the most promising young economists, wherever trained and wherever located. In addition to the men known personally to the members of the committee, suggestions were solicited from the authorities at other institutions, including Harvard, Chicago, California and Leland Stanford. By mid December, scrutiny of the records and publications by the committee to the following seventeen:

 

Name Suggested by
Alchian, Armen A. Haley
Bronfenbrenner, Martin Friedman
Brownlee, O. H. Friedman
Christ, Carl L. Angell
Dewey, D. J. Friedman
Du[e]senberry, [James] Stigler
Goodwin, Richard M. Burbank
Harberger, J. H. Friedman
Ho[s]elitz, Bert Friedman
Lewis, H. Gregg Hart
Machlup, Fritz Stigler
Nicholls, William H. Stigler
Nutter, J. W. Friedman
Pancoast, Omar Taylor
Schelling, Thomas Burbank
Tobin, James Burbank
Vandermeulen, D. C. Ellis

[p. 2]

The meeting of the American Economic Association in New York during the Christmas holidays offered an opportunity to meet many of the men on the above list and to make inquiries regarding them. As a consequence, it has been possible for your committee to make rapid progress with its appraisals. Although the committee is continuing to gather information and data, it is prepared at this time to make a series of definite recommendations, with a high degree of confidence that these recommendations are not likely to be greatly disturbed by its further inquiries.

It is the unanimous opinion of the members of your committee that the most eligible and promising candidate on our list is Martin Bronfenbrenner, associate professor of economics at the University of Wisconsin, at present on leave for special service in Tokyo.

Should Bronfenbrenner prove to be unavailable the committee urges consideration of D. J. Dewey, at present holding a special fellowship at the University of Chicago, on leave from his teaching post at Iowa. As a third name, the committee suggests James Tobin, at present studying at Cambridge, England, on a special fellowship from Harvard.

Detailed information regarding the records of these three men will be found in appendices to this report.

Bronfenbrenner, the first choice of the committee, is 35 years old. He received his undergraduate degree from Washington University at the age of 20 and his Ph.D. from Chicago at 25. During his war service, he acquired a good command of the Japanese language. He taught at Roosevelt College, Chicago, before going to Wisconsin and undergraduate reports of his teaching are as enthusiastic as those of the authorities at Chicago. He happens to be personally well known to two of the members of your committee (Hart and Stigler) and to at last two other member of the department (Shoup and Vickrey), all four of whom commend him in high terms.

The following statement from Hart, dated December 6, 1929, was prepared after a conference with Friedman of Chicago:

“Bronfenbrenner is undoubtedly one of the really powerful original thinkers in the age group between thirty and thirty-five. He has always very much enjoyed teaching; my impression is that his effectiveness has been with the upper half of the student body at Roosevelt College and at Wisconsin. He is primarily a theorist but has a wide range of interest and a great deal of adaptability so it would not be much of a problem to fit him in somewhere [p. 3] in terms of specialization. He would do a good deal to keep professional discussion stirring in the University. My impression is that he tends to be underrated by the market, and that a chance at Columbia College might well be his best opportunity for some time ahead. The difficulty is, of course, that there is no chance of arranging an interview; though Shoup and Vickrey, of course, both saw him last summer.”

In a letter dated December 15, Shoup wrote as follows:

“I have a high regard for Martin Bronfenbrenner’s intellectual capacities, and I think he would fit in well in the Columbia scene. He has an excellent mind and a great intellectual independence. In his writings he sometimes tends to sharp, almost extreme statements, but in my opinion, they almost always have a solid foundation, and in conversation he is always ready to explore all sides of the question. When we had to select someone to take over the tax program in Japan, after the report had been formulated, and oversee the implementation of the program by the Japanese government, it was upon my recommendation that Bronfenbrenner was selected. He arrived in Japan in the middle of August and his work there since that time has confirmed me in my expectations that he would be an excellent selection for the job, even though he did not have very much technical background in taxation. I rank him as one of the most promising economists in his age group in this country, and I should not be surprised if he made one or more major contributions of permanent value in the coming years.

“He has gone to Japan on a two year appointment, after having obtained a two year leave of absence from the University of Wisconsin. My understanding is that on such an appointment he could come back to the United States at the end of one year, provided he paid his own passage back. It might be possible that even this requirement would be waived, but I have no specific grounds for thinking so. I believe the major part of his work with respect to implementing the tax program will have been completed by next September. If the committee finds itself definitely interested in the possibility of Bronfenbrenner’s coming to Columbia, I should not let the two year appointment stand in the way of making inquiries.”

The breadth and rang of his interests recommend Bronfenbrenner as a person who would probably be highly [p.4] valuable in the general course in contemporary civilization and the quality of his written work suggests high promise as a productive scholar in one or more specialized fields.

Your committee considers that the appropriate rank would be that of associate professor.

Respectfully submitted,

[signed]

Robert M. Haig

 

______________________________

Appendix A – Martin Bronfenbrenner

The following data regarding Bronfenbrenner are taken chiefly from the 1948 Directory of the American Economic Assoication:

Born: 1914

Education and Degrees:

A.B. Washington University, 1934
Ph.D. University of Chicago 1939
1940-42, George Washington School of Law

Fields: Theory, mathematical economics, statistical methods, econometrics

Doctoral dissertation: Monetary theory and general equilibrium

Publications:

“Consumption function controversy”, Southern Economic Journal, January, 1948
“Price control under imperfect competition”, American Economic Review, March, 1947
“Dilemma of Liberal Economics,” Journal of Political Economy, August, 1946

Additional publications:

“Post-War Political Economy: The President’s Reports”, Journal of Political Economy, October, 1948
Various book reviews including one on W. I. King’s The Keys to Prosperity, Journal of Political Economy, December, 1948, and A. H. Hansen’s Monetary Theory and Fiscal Policy, Annals

Additions to list of publications circulated, January 9, 1950

“The Economics of Collective Bargaining”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, August, 1939.
(with Paul Douglas) “Cross-Section Studies in the Cobb-Douglas Function”, Journal of Political Economy, 1939.
“Applications of the Discontinuous Oligopoly Demand Curve”, Journal of Political Economy, 1940.
“Diminishing Returns in Federal Taxation” Journal of Political Economy, 1942.
“The Role of Money in Equilibrium Capital Theory”, Econometrica (1943).

______________________________

Appendix B – D. J. Dewey

On leave from Iowa.

In 1948 studied at Cambridge, England.
1949-50, at Chicago on special fellowship.

Bibliography:

Notes on the Analysis of Socialism as a Vocational Problem, Manchester School, September, 1948.
Occupational Choice in a Collectivist Economy, Journal of Political Economy, December, 1948.

Friedman and Schultz are highly enthusiastic.

Statement by Hart, dated December 6, 1949:

“Friedman regards Dewey as first rate and points to an article on ‘Proposal for Allocating the Labor Force in a Planned Economy’ (Journal of Political Economy, as far as I remember in July 1949) for which the J.P.E. gave a prize as the best article of the year. I read the article, rather too quickly, a few weeks ago and it is definitely an imaginative and powerful piece of work. How the conclusions would look after a thorough-going seminar discussion, I am not clear; but the layout of questions is fascinating.”

______________________________

Appendix [C] – James Tobin

Statement by Burbank of Harvard, dated December 14, 1949:

“We have known Tobin a good many years. He came to us as a National Scholar, completed his work for the A.B. before the war and had advanced his graduate work very well before he went into the service. He received his Ph.D. in 1947. Since 1947 he has been a Junior Fellow. He was a teaching fellow from 1945 to 1947. He is now in Cambridge, England, and will, I believe, begin his professional work by next fall. Since Tobin has been exposed to Harvard for a very long time I believe that he feels that for his own intellectual good he should go elsewhere. I doubt if we could make a stronger recommendation than Tobin nor one in which there will be greater unanimity of opinion. Certainly he is one of the top men we have had here in the last dozen years. He is now intellectually mature. He should become one of the handful of really outstanding scholars of his generation. His interests are mainly in the area of money but he is also interested in theory and is competent to teach at any level.”

Data supplied by Harvard:

Address:    Department of Applied Economics, Cambridge University, England

Married:   Yes, one child

Born:          1918, U.S.

Degrees:

A. B. Harvard, 1939 (Summa cum laude)
A.M. Harvard, 1940
Ph.D. Harvard, 1947

Fields of Study: Theory, Ec. History, Money and Banking, Political Theory: write-off, Statistics

Special Field: Business Cycles

Thesis Topic: A Theoretical and Statistical Analysis of Consumer Saving

Experience:

1942-45 U.S. Navy
1945-47 Teaching Fellow, Harvard University
1947- Junior Fellow, Society of Fellows

[p. 2 of Appendix C]

Courses:           1939-40

Ec. 21a (Stat.)                  A
Ec. 121b (Adv. St.)          A
Ec. 133 (Ec. Hist)            A
Ec. 147a (M&B Sem)      A
Ec. 145b (Cycles)             A
Ec. 113b (Hist. Ec.)       Exc.
Gov. 121a (Pol.Th.)         A

1940-1941

Ec. 121a (Stat.)                A
Ec. 164 (Ind. Org.)          A
Ec. 20 (Thesis)                A
Ec. 118b (App. St.)          A
Math 21                             A
Ec. 104b (Math Ec.)       A

1946-47 Library and Guidance

Generals:       Passed May 22, 1940 with grade of Good Plus
Specials:         Passed May 9, 1947 with grade of Excellent.

 

Data from 1948 Directory of American Economic Association:

Harvard University, Junior Fellow

Born:                1918

Degrees:           A. B., Harvard, 1939; Ph.D., Harvard, 1947j

Fields: Business fluctuations, econometrics, economic theory, and mathematical economics

Dissertation: A theoretical and statistical analysis of consumer saving.

Publications:

“Note on Money Wage Problem”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1941.
“Money Wage Rates and Employment”, in New Economics (Knopf, 1947).
“Liquidity Preference and monetary Policy”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 1947.
[pencil addition] Article in Harris (ed.), The New Economics, 1947.

______________________________

Source: Columbia University Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Department of Economics Collection, Box 6, Folder “Columbia College”

Image Source: The beyondbrics blog of the Financial Times.