While Ricardo and Malthus pushed their ideas upon the world and in great part were accepted for them, there were still those “dissenters” who put forth other ideas. J.R. McCulloch, a Scottish economist, supported some truth to Ricardian claims, while pointing out that many of the supposed “certainties” of their claims would not hold true. An example is that of agricultural skill staying the same. Whereas Ricardo would be right if the skill stayed the say, it did not. That given time the skill would improve, as shown by his pointing out that the “worst lands in his day, yielded more than the best lands of two hundred years before.”
While J.R McCulloch was correct in many of his ideas, as well as many others including Augustine Cournot and Jules Dupuit, and Charles Babbage, the world was not ready to see the banner they had raised concerning specialization. As Kenneth Arrow described, “the Economics of the Pin Factory had become “an underground river, springing to the surface only every few decades.””
B for Elgin for kludgy writing like "supported some truth to", "skill staying the same", and "skill stayed the say". Only the last one is wrong, but the others don't sound too nice.
ReplyDeleteNote that Warsh puts Marx right in the middle of mainstream economic thought. This is where economists put him, although the public tends to view him as the start of something new.
What's "cognitive dissonance"? How does it apply to the economic professions views of Ricardo, Malthus and Smith? Extra credit to the first person to bring me a handwritten answer.