ECONOMIC HISTORY

This is a book entitled A Compendious or briefe examination of certayne ordinary complaints, of divers of our countrymen in these our days: which although they are in some part iniust frivolous, yet are they all by way of dialogues throughly debated discussed. To Miss Elizabeth Lamond we owe an exce[r]

that in this case there would have been, in countries that were so poor in goods and so rich in possibilities, an onward rush of competitive enterprise. This expectation would be, however, only in part justified. Poverty is a bad customer, and normal risks of doing business are greatly increased in[r]

science but grew up outside of scholastic university science: such a figure as Leonardo da 1 Owing to the importance of the financial complement of capitalist production and trade, the development of the law and the practice of negotiable paper and of ‘created’ deposits afford perhaps the best indi[r]

were made in the domestic market are equated to zero. Moreover, until the middle of the eighteenth century and in many parts of the world until much later, trading was only possible within protective ad hoc arrangements that the traders had largely to provide themselves. This did not necessarily inv[r]

19 The choice was a difficult one and may give rise to valid objection particularly against the exclusion of such men as John Major (d. 1549; cf. the comments of Ashley in Economic History I, Part II), Navarrus (Martinus de Azpilcueta, d. 1586), Domingo de Soto (De justicia et jure, 15[r]

history. And this applies still more to the general forms of human behavior which we assume either in general or for certain social situations but not for others. Every economics textbook that does not confine itself to teaching technique in the most restricted sense of the word has such an i[r]

and post-Keynesian economics.J. E. King is Professor of Economics at La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia.He specializes in the history of economic thought, with special reference toheterodox schools of thought, Marxian political economy, and post-Keynesianeconomics.Matthias Klaes[r]

Normandy removed from all the Paris influences that might have interfered with the originality of his ideas. Though, as we know, chiefly preoccupied with the problems of French fiscal policy and nearly as fact-minded as was Vauban, he differed from the latter not only in the much wider scope of his[r]

inspiration every one of us may glean lessons from the history of his science that are useful, even though sometimes discouraging. We learn about both the futility and the fertility of controversies; about detours, wasted efforts, and blind alleys; about spells of arrested growth, about our d[r]

(1914). In his effort to secure fiscal reform Vauban had two allies whose relation to him however is not clear. The one was Boisguillebert, who was much more of an economist than was Vauban and whose performance will be considered in chs. 4 and 6 of this Part. Here we need only record, first, that h[r]

presumably was not, taken from St. Thomas. The physiocrat ordre naturel (to which there corresponds in the world of real phenomena an ordre positif) is the ideal dictate of human nature as revealed by human reason. What difference there is between Quesnay and the scholastics is not to the former’s c[r]

administrative reforms, of revenue from the domaine, the mint, the post office, a special tax on tobacco production, and a salt tax: all of this helps to remove the stigma of freakishness that has been put upon the impôt unique. But observe that there was nothing in the physiocrat general program th[r]

(p. 229), though it does not follow cogently from his muddled argument, that landowners benefit in the process directly, both because the real value of the products of the land rises and because they receive a larger relative share of these products; and in addition indirectly, owing to the fall of[r]

History of economic analysis 158 indicated by some of his recommendations. He wanted to see a balanced budget that would have plenty of room for welfare expenditure and avoid the necessity of resorting to forced loans—which he compared to robbery and theft—and the like; definite, equit[r]

relevant to our subject. Smith himself, according to Dugald Stewart, indeed laid claim (in a paper drawn up in 1755) to priority concerning the principle of Natural Liberty on the ground that he had taught it as early as 1749. By this principle he meant both a canon of policy—the removal of all rest[r]

this hypothesis, which puts him, morally, high above all those who emphasize points of difference in order to distance themselves from fellow workers to whom they owe obligation, he should not be classified as a physiocrat with reservations, but as a nonphysiocrat with physiocrat sympathies. This se[r]

‘against luxury’ even if his economic argument leads him to attribute ‘favorable’ effects to it, (b) clearly traceable to bourgeois resentment against ‘high living,’ especially in the ‘aristocratic’ stratum; second, by distinguishing the different meanings that were attached to the word. Duri[r]

meaningless, does not solve the problem. Neither do, for that matter, the points made by Professor Pringsheim in a footnote to his translation, although they, too, are by no means irrelevant. We cannot go further in this subject. But the reader would be much mistaken if he thought that it is without[r]

spent, while the very wars on which they were mainly spent greatly interfered with production. Nevertheless, though it is probably possible to find early arguments that more or less distinctly imply this obvious diagnosis,1 it seems to be the fact that no explicit, full, and—so far as it went—theore[r]

(paper-milling), and public benefactor. As a public servant he was first ‘factor’ (fiscal agent) for the English crown in the Netherlands—keeping up its credit, managing the course of the English exchange, negotiating loans, acting as buyer of war materials, getting hold, by hook or by crook, of bul[r]