Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1956 The lP ace of Keynes in the History of Economic Theory. Leon Francis Lee Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Lee, Leon Francis, "The lP ace of Keynes in the History of Economic Theory." (1956). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 150. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/150 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IKE PLACE OF KEYNES IN IKK HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THEORY A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty o‘" the. Louisiana State- University and Aqricul turn] and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirement*.! for the decree of Doctor of Fhilonophy in The Department of Economics b y ^ ./ Icon FLee B. A., University of Oklahoma. 19^0 M. A., University o*' Oklahoma, 19-^6 June, 191)6 ACK7;OTmr,xEi;? Grateful acknowledgment lc extended to the following persona for thoir many criticisms, suggestions, and valuable words of guidance ir. the preparation of this dissertation: !>. Harlan L. KeCr&ckcn, Dr. William D. Ross, Dr. Kenneth K . Thompson, Dr. John W. Chisholm, and Dr. Walter F. 3crns. Sincere appreciation is extended to my wife, Baby, who typed the final manuscript and offered sympathy and encouragement during the difficult days of the study. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE ACKNOWLEDGMENT..................................... ii ABSTRACT ................. v I. INTRODUCTION..............................................1 II. SOME PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS OF KEYNES' IDEA SYSTEM .. 5 A. L o g i c .......................................... l6 B. Episteraology .............................. 20 C. Ethics................... ..................... 28 III. KEYNES AND THE RECEIVED ECONOMICS.....................’ 35 John R. Commons' Theory of Value and Keynes......... U9 IV. EVOLUTION OF THE DOCTRINE OF EFFECTIVEDEMA N D......... 56 Pierre lo Pesant de Boisguilbcrt .................. 57 Bernard Mandeville ................................ 68 Sir James Steuart.................................. 7^ Lord Lauderdale.................................... 76 Thomas Malthus...................................... 86 Jean Charles Sismondi .............................. 122 T. ChalmerB, R. S. Moffat, J. A. HobB o n............ 127 Albert Aftalion .................................... 133 •W. T*. Foster and Waddill C a t c h i n g s ................ 138 V. MONETARY HERESY AND FINANCIAL CA P I T A L I S M............ 1^5 A. Proudhon's Idea System ........................ 150 B. Silvio Gesell's Idea Sys t e m......... l6l C. Similarities of the Idea Systems of Proudhon, Gesell, and K e y n e s ............................ 178 ill VI. CONCLUSIONS........................................... 200 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................ 238 GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY............................... 2k2 VITA .................................................. 252 iv ABSTRACT The general reference of this study is to the relationships between the economics of John Maynard Keynes and received economics. Hie term "received economics" refers to the economic theory promul­ gated before Keynes. The specific problem was to place properly the economics of Keynes in the history of economic theory with specific reference to his more important antecedents. Within this frame of reference, the following aspects of Keynesian economics were examined: (a) his general demand analysis, (b) his theories of value, (c) his doctrine of effective demand, and (d) his monetary theory. The research took the form of examining the works of those economists who have been largely responsible for the formu­ lation of economic theory from the period of Mercantilism to Keynes. Primarily, this involved the Classical School, Austrian theory, and the thoupjit systems of some of the so called economic "heretics." The results of the study strongly indicnte that economists may confidently reject the hypothesis that the idea system of Keynes con­ stituted a break from the past and created a new economics. The de­ mand analysis employed by Keynes had its beginning with the Austrians, Insofar as he embraced a labor theory of value, Keynes accepted--at least in part— the value theory of the Classicists. His commanded value theory was derived directly from the Austrians, and his expec­ tation theory of value was virtually identical with John R. Commons' volitional theory of value. The doctrine of effective demand has a long and interesting history. With reference to this doctrine, Boisguilbert, Lauderdale, Maithus, Sismondi, Aftalion, Hobson, and others wore important predecessors of Keynes. Macro-economics was by no means original with Keynes. All business cycle theories run in macroscopic terms. The consumption function has long been a major factor in underconsumption economics. And, of course, it was virtually stated in Engel's Law of Consumption, Keynes' attack on saving and his enthusiasm for spending was n concept which has been present in the literature of economies for at least two centuries. Keynes was a monetary "heretic," but there were important antecedents to his monetary theory and to his distrust of financial capitalism. Finally, the General Theory is full of tendency concepts quite in keeping with classical economics. The general conclusion is that Keynes took scattered ideas that had long been present in economic thought and formulated an economic theory that was an intellectual response to existing eco­ nomic conditions. Tlie General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money marked an important milestone in the development of economic theory; it caused all economists to re-ovaluate their fundamental theories. But it cannot properly be referred to as the "Keynesian Revolution." It wTas simply an important part in the evolution of economic theory. vi THE PLACE OF K T iH® IN THE !i 35 TOOT OF ECONOMIC THKOOT CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION There is a significant gap in the literature treating the idea system of the great EngliBh economist, John Maynard Keynes. That gap 1b present because no one has seriously attempted to view the economics of Keynes from the perspective of the history of economic thought; that is, place Keynes in his proper position in the development of economic theory. To be sure, many writers have explained that this or that aspect of KeyneB can be found in the writings of earlier economists,'1' but none hove searched diligently through the history of economic thought for the precise purpose of discovering whether Keynes' so-called "New Economics" is in fact new or whether it is a brilliant combination of pre-existing economic theories presented at a very opportune time in the development of the capitalistic economic system. Economists, as a group, have been too busy either eulogizing or criticizing the General Theory^ to concern themselves with this issue. This study is an ^For example see; Lawrence R. Klein, The Keynesian Revolution (New York; The Macmillan Co., 19^7), Ch. 5; The essays in The New Economics— Keynes• Influence on Theory and Public Policy (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, I9W ) , by Seymour Harris (Chs. 1, 3, and 6), Joseph Schumpeter (Ch. 9), Paul Sarauelson (Ch. 13), Gottfried Haberler (Ch. 1*0, J. Tinbergen (Ch. 18), Wassily Leontief (Ch. 19), Arthur Smithies (Ch. 39), and R. F. Harrod (Ch. 1*1). 2John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 193^). Hereafter cited as General Theory. 1 attempt to bridge this gap in the Keynesian literature. Obviously, the whole of the history of economic thou$it cannot be presented in u study of this type. Fortunately, that is not necessary to realize the objectives of the study. Only those parts of the stream of economic theory will be examined which clearly anticipated the major principles contained in the General Theory. In view of the great body of Keynesian literature, there is no need for still another detailed analysis of the economics of Keynes, and this study does not purport to present such an analysis. Quite the contrary, the assumption is made throughout that the reader is familiar with the General Theory. Many writers have explained that the appearance of the General Theory in 193^ was in response to the depression that was sweeping the capitalistic world at that time. This explanation has a great degree of validity but it is not the complete story. There is reason to believe that Keynes wrote as he did for more reasons than those prompted by the great depression, reasons which were primarily philo­ sophical and pragnatic in nature. Keynes lived during a period of rather radical change in philosophical thought, and his own thinking in matters of an economic nature was profoundly affected. The ob­ jective of Chapter Two is to examine the philosophical environment which surrounded Keynes and to relate this environment to the theo­ retical approach employed in the General Theory.3 ^Ferdinand Zweig, Economic Ideas (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1950), p. 21. "Keynes himself was, so to speak, pre-Keynesian, Keynesian, and Post-Keynesian. What is called Keynesian doctrine culminated in the year 1936 with the