Malthus was proven correct of course, when the Factor of Production -Land – was unceremoniously removed as a separate Factor and became part of Capital. The incongruity of combining something that was here before us and will be here after we are gone apparently escaped Clarke and Fetter, et al.
From there on economic theory was in trouble. This was lately illustrated with Picketty’s best seller ‘proving’ that inequality can be linked to Capital returns. Fortunately it has already been pointed out that not Capital but Land values within the definition of Capital are the source of inequality.
Harry Pollard
Henry George School of Los Angeles
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Giancarlo de Vivo
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2017 1:23 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] LSE series of reprints of scarce works on political economy
For Richard Ebeling:
There is nothing that may not be proved by a new definition. A composition of flour, milk, suet, and stones is a plum-pudding; if by stones be meant plums.
(Malthus, Definitions in Political Economy, p. 100
The original misprints “in”.
Il giorno 18/giu/2017, alle ore 02:21, richard ebeling <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > ha scritto:
In response to Giancarlo de Vivo's last comment, there are those who would consider economists such as Hayek and Robbins at the LSE in the 1930s as the "progressive" ones, and the socialists as the "reactionaries" wanting to return society to the old command and control system of human association.
Just an observation.
Richard Ebeling
BB&T Professor of Ethics
and Free Enterprise Leadership
School of Business
The Citadel
Charleston, South Carolina
On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Giancarlo de Vivo <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > wrote:
The LSE was started thanks to the bequest of between £9,000 and £10,000 from a Mr Henry Hutchinson to S. Webb and others with the clause the “they may apply the same at once gradually and at all events within ten years to the propaganda and other purposes of the said [Fabian] Society and its Socialism” (see J. Beveridge, An Epic of Clare Market, p.25). S. Webb argued that an (impartial?) study of economics would lead everybody to Socialism so the money could be used to prop up the School.
That it became a beckon of reactionary economics is another problem.
Giancarlo de Vivo
Il giorno 17/giu/2017, alle ore 23:53, R. W. Dimand <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > ha scritto:
The statement that "the LSE was an institution aimed at promoting socialism" is
missing one word: the word "not." Sidney and Beatrice Webb were socialists, but
took care that the LSE would be a non-partisan institution devoted to research
and the pursuit knowledge. So the first director of LSE, William Hewins, later
entered politics as a Conservative MP, a former chair of the Conservative Party
became chair of the governing board of LSE in the 1930s, and notable professors
at LSE have included not only such prominent socialists as Harold Laski and
R. H. Tawney but the equally eminent anti-socialists Friedrich Hayek, Michael
Oakeshott and Lionel Robbins. Hayek and Robbins held LSE chairs in the 1930s
at the time of Rockefeller funding for the series of reprints of scarce works in
economics. Perhaps the funding was given neither to promote socialism or to
undermine it, but to support the reprinting of scarce works in the history of
political economy.
Robert Dimand
_____
From: Societies for the History of Economics [ <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]] on behalf of Mason Gaffney [ <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]]
Sent: June 17, 2017 3:31 PM
To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] LSE series of reprints of scarce works on political economy
Dear Scott and Giancarlo,
Please consider also the possibility that the Rocks financed LSE not to promote Fabianism but to subvert it. They were a shrewd and canny lot
Mason Gaffney
From: Societies for the History of Economics [ <mailto:[log in to unmask]> mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Cullen
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 11:50 AM
To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] LSE series of reprints of scarce works on political economy
Giancarlo, that very fact had always puzzled me. And my own mis-recollection of the time period may explain it.
<http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsehistory/2015/06/24/lse-rockefellers-baby/> http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsehistory/2015/06/24/lse-rockefellers-baby/ LSE's own historic piece pushes the timeline forward from the Fabian Socialist founders to the 1930's, JDR Jr.'s correspondence with LSE's Beveridge, Beveridge's recognition orf earlier Rockefeller funding of LSE, and utimately young David's time at LSE.
That piece also confirms that Rockefeller money was instrumental in founding U Chicago circa 1890. See also <http://www.uchicago.edu/about/history/> http://www.uchicago.edu/about/history/ So I may have associated that early aid to Chicago with concurrent aid to LSE, when in fact the LSE aid may have bee decades later.
A history of philanthropic support at LSE <http://www.lse.ac.uk/intranet/LSEServices/Advancement/AboutUs/History.aspx> http://www.lse.ac.uk/intranet/LSEServices/Advancement/AboutUs/History.aspx narrows the timeline to late 1920s to early 1930s.
Thanks for making me dig deeper.
----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:[log in to unmask]> Giancarlo de Vivo
To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: [SHOE] LSE series of reprints of scarce works on political economy
I doubt Rockefeller could have funded the LSE in its very early days: it was founded as an institution aimed at promoting of Socialism!
Il giorno 17/giu/2017, alle ore 18:02, Scott Cullen < <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]> ha scritto:
It may be interesting, if not directly relevant, to point out that David Rockefeller, who died in March of this year just shy of 102, studied at LSE after graduating from Harvard in 1936 and before going on to complete his PhD at Chicago (1940). I think in economics, something about underutilized capacity in the firm I think but I can't seem to find that reference right now.
I'm also unable to find the reference right now, but I vaguely remember reading that Rockefeller funding might have been involved in the very early years of LSE.
Scott Cullen