For some reason, I think this would be harder to answer than for the 20th century. I thought of this, since somebody asked me today who it was on my Bastiat T-shirt, and I said he was in my opinion, if not the best economist of the 19th century at least probably the best french economist of the 19th century. But I’m not even sure about that, and whether my opinion would really mean much as my reading in economics is still pretty scant, and there is a lot more I would like to learn in time.
So, I leave it to the members, who would you rate the best economist of the 19th century, and why?
Does Carl Menger count? What about Destutt de Tracy? Both of them have century overlaps in their lifespan. Ditto for William Graham Sumner.
Yes they all count. Interesting choices, I guess part of the motivation of this thread is to make some kind of shopping list of who I read next over the summer.
I thought this would be more popular…bump.
I want to throw Böhm-Bawerk’s name onto this list. He was the first (that I am aware of) to refute marxism.
I’d throw Henry George into the mix. He did perpetuate the labour theory of value however he made a compelling case for free trade and against patents.
Not the best, I think Menger wins that hands down, but certainly rather good.
Tie between H.H. Gossen and Carl Menger.
Both refuted socialism totally.
Carl Menger is the best, though Frederic Bastiat and Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk are really very close.
I must say Marx and Gossen are probably the most surprising to me so far. I admit all I know about Gossen is second hand, but as far as I knew he was the main predecessor for Jevons and Walras in developing their more psychological and mathematical forms of utillity theory, and hence confusing the “satiation of wants” and marginal utility. I guess he must have done a lot more than just this unfortunate contribution.
Also, Jonathan, could you explain the choice of Marx?
I think Bohm-Bawerk>Menger in my opinion but I’m going to throw in Wicksell as a possibility as well.
Bohm-Bawerk has the time preference theory but Wicksell’s capital theory had a large influence on and was largely the precursor to Austrian capital theory and therefore the ABCT.
I’d say it’s a tie between Wicksell and Bohm-Bawerk
Fetter’s work was published early 20th century but he is worth mentioning, good subjectivist and a lot of his views were similar to Mises’
Edit: if I recall correctly Keynes read some Wicksell but he didn’t understand German enough so he missed the capital theory and Hayek pointed that out when he totally demolished Keynes.
Obviously it’s going to be harder then the 20th century, Mises’ work was in the 20th century.
Gossen did not develop the Walras style approach, but after developing the system of equations showed how this is only the final state of the market, not the real state at any time. Then he,
-
Rather had a rather nice discussion of how only the market with commodity money can allocate knowledge concerning what to produce
-
Showed why inflation favours one industry at the expense of another, leading to industrial disbalance in what is produced
-
Why only commodity money produced on the market (not government issued money) should be used (he wanted people to use their own standard of measuring money so that government could not change the weight ad hoc)
-
Decided communists and socialists have the intelligence of small furry animals with long ears and a short tail.
He did, of course, commit an error when he suggested cardinal utility; but so did all economists until Voigt (I went and got his essays, after reading about him; its true), Cuhel (still need to get his book), and Mises. Menger was on the verge of an ordinal utility, it seems to me with his wheat example and utility charts, however.
Hence Gossen and Menger.
I have read most of the French Liberal School economists, as well as their predecessors. I do not think that tradition advanced much after Jean-Baptiste Say, so he represents the best from that tradition. Tracy presented some interesting ideas on methodology as well as public debt, but his thoughts on land were flawed; I did not think he was much of an improvement over Say, really. Bastiat was a wonderful popularizer and strong defender of laissez-faire, but he was weak in theory. Molinari took the next (last?) step to enter anarcho-capitalism, but I do not find his actual economic writings that great. To be fair, though, there is not that much available from him in English - just a book or two and some essays. Yves Guyot, in my opinion, represents a regression in the Liberal School. I have to get rid of him on my profile picture . . .
But Carl Menger is simply amazing. In my opinion, he is the best economist from the nineteenth-century. I also have respect for William Stanley Jevons. He considered himself an extension of the French economists. So, my rankings are: (1)Menger, (2) Say, and (3) Jevons.
econ student is right, I think.
Jevons should be on that list as well. After all, Hayek’s Pure Theory of Capital is partly based on Jevon’s triangular diagram of capital investment and disinvestment.
So now it: Gossen, Menger, Jevons for me.
Say almost makes it on the list. Guyot is a regression insofar as economic theory, I agree, but his book on why WWI started is a tremendous and amazing political science. It’s like a Vladimir Rezun-style taking apart of WWI.
Wicksell worked with the Bohm-Bawerkian capital framework, and actually understood it, though he found some parts problematic. He is really the father of Austrian monetary and business cycle theory (the interest rate as an indirect transition mechanism) which Mises, of course, elaborated upon.
It’s Bohm-Bawerk hands down. He refuted Marx and Engles, the mythological capital theories of the anglo classical school (which are still accepted today), actually defined capital (though not perfectly), refuted cardinal utility (which many Austrians adhered to), and introduced time preference (the supremacy of utility and subjectivism).
Bohm-Bawerk hands down; it’s the obvious choice. Leftists would say either Ricardo or Marx (though Ricardo’s trade cycle theory is a precursor to the ABCT, and he was a member of the currency school).
Certainly, Bohm-Bawerk belongs in the mix. Ricardo should be mentioned as well. From what I understand, however, J. S. Mill is quite mediocre. Has anyone read him? What do you think?
And what about Leon Walras? I haven’t had the chance, or time, to study him. I’m vaguely aware of his flaws, of course, but did anyone consider his main treatise interesting or worthwhile?
Thanks in advance.
I find this question very hard to answer as I thought that the 19th century was filled with great economists, whereas the 20th may have had the same number but those who were of a “good” quality were not nearly as great. The 19th century had Bastiat, Menger, Bawerk, Say, and Mills, all of whom were very prominent with the exception of Bastiat. Could someone tell me exactly how big Bastiat was? Because I can’t understand what influence he had on French history or economic thought.
If I had to pick my favorite though it would probably be menger.
One problem with Bastiat centers on his age. He died at 49 years old, and had only started his career as an economist and politician a few years earlier; he didn’t have enough time. That, and his weakness as an economic theorist, I think, prevented any lasting influence on French thought (outside of laissez-faire circles). In terms of economic thought, he is considered a witty, brilliant journalist and popularizer. As a theorist, however, he doesn’t offer much. I like Bastiat, but overtime I find myself more and more in agreement with Schumpeter’s assessment, which some consider harsh.
By the 1870s, the French Liberal School no longer represented an intellectual force. I think that the later label of “Optimist School” was directed at Bastiat in particular. In other words, the new term carried the same stigma the label “Austrian School” originally had.