From Queries and Remarks Respecting Alterations in the Constitution of Pennsylvania (1789):
*****
One day I want to write a book called Jeffersonian Political Economy and American Keynesianism: 1729-1947, tracing the American tradition in economic thought back to its early days, and demonstrating how that formed the basis of an approach to the economy that made the ground fertile for the thorough adoption of Keynesianism in the 1930s and 1940s. Franklin figures prominently in that early story (not for this piece specifically - but for another paper he wrote even earlier), along with Jefferson, of course. I've been thinking about this for a while, but of course it's not something that you just sit down and write. Some day, though...
One really ought not to buy into silly state of nature arguments like this.
ReplyDeleteIn what sense is this a state of nature argument? I think you're reading an indian reference and reverting back to Rousseau without closely interrogating it. Although there is a reference to this idea of "civil society", there is no claim that in the state of nature we didn't have these things, which is why we adopted the state. Indeed - it's after the indians are supposed to have adopted a "civil society" that they still don't have property rights in the sense that the colonists did!!! So clearly it's not a condition he's tying to a state of nature! The whole point is different societies are ultimately going to construct conceptions of rights differently - putting all talk of a state of nature aside.
ReplyDeleteThis criticism really doesn't stick - Franklin was known for mocking European arguments about the state of nature and their use of the indians as an archetype. He recognized the indian tribes for what they were - in some cases an existential threat to the colonies (no romanticization there), and in some cases a very enlightened society from whom he borrowed important ideas about confederation. He was a realist about the indians through and through, and I don't see a hint of state of nature thinking in this particular piece.
The Hobbesian state of nature, not Rousseau's version.
ReplyDeleteToday's Reason.TV video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovY2Xd8bG3s&feature=player_embedded
ReplyDeleteI would love to see a post on how Jefferson was a proto-Keynesian.
ReplyDeleteYou may not see a detailed one in the near future, but to summarize - Jefferson's economic thought was dominated by what would later be called "overproductionism". This informed a lot his views on both commercial policy and western policy. I think people underestimate the extent to which overproductionism has informed American thought on the economy at every stage of our development - and a lot of that originates with the Jeffersonians. These sorts of explanations came to a head in the 1920s and 1930s with much more famous American overproductionist thinkers. The point is, the transition from overproductionism to underconsumptionism to Keynesianism is a very easy transition to make. I think that explains a lot of the easy acceptance of Keynesianism here - much better than some of the other ad hoc solutions that people have come up with.
ReplyDeleteI'm intereseted in looking into his conflict with Hamilton more and to what extent his animosity towards aristocracy (ironic, I know - but he certainly had such an animosity) makes any of the same points that Keynes does about the rentier. I'm not sure if it does, but it's possible. Concerns about Hamilton's plan revolved around concerns over a tighter grip on credit, not a looser one, so its possible.
Jefferson, in letters to Jean Baptiste Say, offers sympathy to Matlhus. Say is a friend of Jefferson's, so he frames it by saying "I think Malthus may be better suited to our conditions than yours", but he definitely advocates some of Malthus's points.
During his time in France he definitely made Foster and Catchings type associations between inequality and depressed consumption and underutilization of resources.
But the main current, I think, lies in his overproductionist ideas.
Franklin is an even easier case to make - he had ideas about the money supply and interest rates that did not just pave the way for actual Keynesianism - they essentially were Keynesian points.
Gary - still, how is that present here in Franklin's point at all. Franklin is comparing two societies - neither of which are in a state of nature - and noting the variance in the extent of property rights.
ReplyDeleteIf you're trying to paint that opening point of "let's say they form a civil society" as indicating the existence of a pre-civil society period that is "the state of nature", perhaps he does imply such a thing. But it has absolutely no bearing on his claim about rights - none at all. It's just a (perhaps misleading) way of comparing indian society with colonial society - neither of which are discussed as states of nature.
StrangeLoop,
ReplyDeleteSoviet scholars tried to turn lots of people into proto-Marxists. It is hard to make Jefferson into a proto-Keynesian when Jefferson was so heavily influence by Harrington/Locke and the concept of "inalienable rights." Keynes did not believe in such an idea.
Gary -
ReplyDeleteWell Keynesian economics, not Keynesian views on rights which really have nothing to do with his work on economics.
Besides - Jefferson appealed to "inalienable rights" but then wrote at other times about where natural rights had gone too far (again - see his writings from France) not because he had lost his liberalism, but because he saw a conception of natural rights that became anti-thetical to liberalism.
Jefferson was, above all other things, a (1.) democrat, and a (2.) liberal. You need to be careful between the tendency that democrats and liberals have to talk in terms of inalienable rights (because democrats and liberals place a great premium on rights, and natural rights language reinforces that), and a more academic ontological claim to a belief in natural rights. Jefferson certainly places a premium on rights. So do I. So did Keynes. So do lots of people. I'm not quite sure he made any strong ontological claims abotu them of the sort that you're attributing to him.
Natural rights emerged as a counter-weight to the idea of the divine right of kings. As time went by people started to question the ontological content of natural rights claims, but this does not mean they abandoned the significance of rights. I think you're running a serious risk of engaging in presentist history here, Gary.
ReplyDeleteMost people today who would say natural rights aren't strictly speaking "real" would have been in the natural rights camp 250 years ago. If this is true, then it's absurd of you to pretend that there weren't some people in the natural rights camp 250 years ago who wouldn't hesitate about those claims today. Jefferson hesitated over them back then for God's sake! It's not so outrageous to suggest he would today.
Anyway - none of this has to do with his economics, which has strong overproductionist elements to it (and this overproductionism was shared broadly by republicans at the time - see Drew McCoy on that).
"Franklin figures prominently in that early story (not for this piece specifically - but for another paper he wrote even earlier)..."
ReplyDelete"Jefferson's economic thought was dominated by what would later be called "overproductionism". This informed a lot his views on both commercial policy and western policy."
"During his time in France he definitely made Foster and Catchings type associations between inequality and depressed consumption and underutilization of resources."
"Franklin is an even easier case to make - he had ideas about the money supply and interest rates that did not just pave the way for actual Keynesianism - they essentially were Keynesian points."
I find these topics to be very interesting. Could you please elaborate where Franklin and Jefferson made these comments so I can do further research? Thanks.