I write as someone who is certainly financial independent of the
professional academic community, and who has always thought it a duty to
seek objectivity, and oppose ideology.

I received two off list replies to my recent SHOE plea concerning
publication.  One solicited, another, showing an old fashioned sort of
kindliness, unsolicited.  I reply openly, respecting anonymity.

Michael McLure and Gregory Moore think, regarding the state of the
discipline of economic thought, the glass is more than half full.  From my
perspective it seems empty.  Bankrupt.

Both my correspondents make the same point, concerning a separation of the
study of facts from the study of ideas, a fundamental point, a point I
consider fatal to good scholarship.

I assume Blaug quoting Lakatos was taking a similar stance when he wrote

“‘Philosophy of science without history of science is empty’”

My kindly correspondent recommends I try EHR.  I was first bounced by a EHR
in 1984.  To his credit, the editor, Church, listened to my reply,
repudiated his referee and asked me to re-present.  Maintaining financial
independence however is not easy - alongside building my house, running my
business, raising my family, this took till 1989.  When I was bounced by
Wrigley.  The amusing fact is that both referees reports I received were
products of exactly the same dogma, the exact one I was attacking.  Both
manufactured arguments to support the dogma.  But the arguments were
mutually, directly contradictory.  I pointed this out to Wrigley and he
blanked me.  Joe Cribb, later head of the Coin Dept at the BM also wrote to
remonstrate, and was, I understand, likewise blanked.  I append the open
letter I addressed to Wrigley, written in 1991

So I judged ideology ruled, and I abandoned the whole matter, for about 10
years.  But then I noticed something surprising.  A great deal of academic
activity, post 2000, taking up very much the sort of questions I had
addressed in 1984.  This included work of the following nature

Selgin at CATO, making a historically invalid point in order to create a
myth that would appeal to the prior prejudices CATO members 

Sargent at the Federal Reserve Bank, implausibly arguing that the historical
errors of central bankers were entirely due to their being:  nice but dim.

Wray and Hudson, darlings of the heterodox movement, misrepresenting
instruments of serfdom as instruments of commerce.

Obviously these are controversial claims and would need to be tested and
defended.  But my attempts to take this forward by private correspondence,
by public web based comment, and by seeking to publish have all hit brick
walls.  

I am in a catch 22 over the facts vs theories matter, and see no way out.

My current position with regard to contemporary academic life seems to me
broadly similar to that taken by Wycliff towards the Catholic Church, in the
14th century.

Rob Tye, York,  UK

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(November 1991)

AN OPEN LETTER TO MR E A  WRIGLEY, EDITOR, ECONOMIC HISTORY REVIEW

About ten years ago I became aware of the growing influence of a school of
monetarist writers on numismatics (Braudel, Spufford, Day, Metcalf et al.)
which was beginning to influence the perspective of oriental numismatics
(for instance in the work of Richards, Habib, and Deyell). Their central
idea is that the volume of trade is heavily dependant upon the volume of
coin, which is in turn dependant upon the volume of new metal coming out of
the ground. I found some of their results impossible to reconcile with my
understanding of coinage, and set about disputing them by considering a
number of examples, one of which was the lack of provision of copper coinage
in Tudor England. My argument is that there was no shortage of the metal to
constrain the Tudors, nor lack of demand from the public for an issue. The
only satisfactory explanation is a desire by the state to favour big
business, and constrict petty trade into channels of credit dependency,
thereby more readily controlled by the trading guilds; combinations held
together by chains of credit which stretched from the lowliest village shop
to the London magnates. It was not the logic of supply and demand which
dictated the D-set, but the logic of monopoly. I have received two attempts
at refutation of this from EHR experts:
1.(1984):"0ne reason for Elizabeth not sanctioning copper coinage may have
been :a desire to conserve stocks of that metal, for trade or for gun casting." 
2.(l989):"at existing metal prices the coins would have been much too heavy."
The position of your experts is clearly that the lack a petty coin issue was
dictated by the copper supply. The only matter left in doubt is whether
there was too little metal (1), or too much (2).

In the face of my further criticism your reply has been:

"there is something of a culture clash between economic historians and
numismatists in the circumstances therefore, I do not think that any good
purpose would be served by entering into an exchange of views between our
referee and yourself."

I understand your position thus: 'if economic dogma disagrees with
numismatic fact; one may ignore numismatic fact'. I do not consider it tenable.

There would seem to be four categories of material brought to the study of
economic history: historical statements, modern economic theory, old
financial records, and old coins. Three of these must be taken at a
discount. Human beings are equipped with an extraordinary ability to
construct accounts of the world which favour the interests of themselves and
their associates. No man of experience would ever accept present or past
statements of an economic nature at face value. Bodies of economic theory
appear to be just as prone to such corrupting influences. Nor are financial
records totally innocent in this regard. The high degree of certainty with
which past D-sets can be ascertained gives this qualitative numismatic
evidence a special significance, being of great value to those who seek the
truth. It is an equivalently difficult obstacle to any who seek to
monopolise this branch of scholarship with their dogma. Forgive me for
favouring disputation over etiquette.

yours sincerely,


Robert Tye

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

https://www.academia.edu/3556314/Sargent_and_Velde_-_A_Compendium_of_Errors