¹ von Mering, Otto, “Some Problems of Methodology in Modern Economic Theory,” The American Economic Review, XXXIV (1944), 87.Google Scholar

² See, for example, the recent books and other writings of J. W. Angell, A. H. Hansen, R. F. Harrod, R. G. Hawtrey, J. R. Hicks, M. Kalecki, A. P. Lerner, A. R. Marget, J. E. Meade, A. C. Pigou, D. H. Robertson, and Joan Robinson.

³ Throughout this article I have used the terms “classical economics” and “classical economists” in the sense in which Keynes uses them in his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (London: Macmillan and Company, 1936)Google Scholar. He defines the classical economists as the followers of Ricardo, including among others J. S. Mill, Alfred Marshall, and A. C. Pigou. As Keynes points out, this is not the original meaning of the term “classical economist.” Nevertheless, in discussing Keynes's thinking, his terminology serves the purpose of distinguishing Keynes's economics from the orthodox, traditional principles of economics.

⁴ (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1930), Vol. I, chap, xiv, “The Industrial Circulation and the Financial Circulation.”Google Scholar

⁵ The New Republic, LXXXH (1935), 35.Google Scholar

⁶ (London: Macmillan and Company, 1913), p. 99.

⁷ Cf. Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Currency and Finance (London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1926), I.Google Scholar

⁸ Indian Currency and Finance, p. 101.

⁹ (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1920), p. 25.

¹⁰ The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936), esp. chap. xxiv.

¹¹ Economic Consequences of the Peace, p. 22.

¹² Ibid., p. 19.

¹³ Laissez-faire and Communism (New York: New Republic, 1926), pp. 76–77.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Economic Consequences of the Peace, p. 20.

¹⁵ Essays in Persuasion (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1932), p. vii.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Economic Consequences of the Peace, pp. 256–82.

¹⁷ Treatise on Money, II, 181.

¹⁸ See Keynes's testimony on the capital levy before the Committee on National Debt and Taxation, Minutes of Evidence (1927), II, 534–40.Google Scholar

¹⁹ The New Republic, XLV (1926), 266.Google Scholar

²⁰ The American edition is called Monetary Reform (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1924)Google Scholar. The following references are to the American edition.

²¹ Ibid., pp. 44–45.

²² Ibid., p. 13.

²³ The American edition is entitled The Economic Consequences of Sterling Parity (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1925)Google Scholar. The following quotations are from the American edition.

²⁴ Treatise on Money, II, 182.

²⁵ Cf. Clapham, John H., An Economic History oj Modern Britain (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1938), III, 542–45.Google Scholar

²⁶ Economic Consequences of Sterling Parity, pp. 9, 23.

²⁷ Ibid., p. 8; also pp. 20, 21, 28.

²⁸ Great Britain, Committee on Finance and Industry, Report (London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1931), p. 109.Google Scholar

²⁹ The Times (London), 03 5, 1925, p. 15.Google Scholar

³⁰ Economic Consequences of Sterling Parity, pp. 18–19.

³¹ Ibid., p. 11.

³² See Hutt, Allen, The Post-War History of the British Working Class (New York: Coward-McCann, 1938),p. 89.Google Scholar

³³ Economic Consequences of Sterling Parity, p. 25.

³⁴ “The Return Towards Gold,” The New Republic, LXII (1925), p. 92.Google Scholar

³⁵ London: The Nation and Athenaeum, 1929.

³⁶ Keynes and others have credited R. F. Kahn with the invention of the multiplier theory. This is true only in the sense that Kahn first gave it a refined technical formulation. The basic insight and a clear explanation of its practical significance is clearly expressed in the Keynes-Henderson pamphlet of 1929, whereas Kahn's article in The Economic Journal did not appear until 1931.

³⁷ For a standard textbook view of the relation between monetary control and public works, see Estey, James Arthur, Business Cycles; Their Nature, Cause, and Control (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1941), p. 405.Google Scholar

³⁸ The Times (London), 05 29,1929, p. 9.Google Scholar

³⁹ The World's Economic Crisis and the Way of Escape (New York: Century Company, 1932),p. 57.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Wright, Quincy, ed., Unemployment as a World-Problem (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1932), p. 3.Google Scholar

⁴¹ World's Economic Crisis and the Way of Escape, p. 57.

⁴² New Statesman and Nation, New Series, II (1931), 329.Google Scholar

⁴³ The New Republic, LXII (1925), 286.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Essays in Persuasion, p. v.

⁴⁵ Committee on Finance and Industry, Minutes of Evidence, II, p. 78.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ The Theory of Unemployment (London: Macmillan and Company, 1933), pp. 25.5, 155.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Economics in Practice (London: Macmillan and Company, 1935), p. 51. Sec also p. 70.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ The Times (London), 04 2, 1931, p. 6.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ New Statesman and Nation, New Series, I (1931), 100.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ “Free Trade for England,” The New Republic, XXXVII (1923), 87.Google Scholar

⁵¹ “Now I range myself with the heretics. I believe their flair and their instinct move them towards the right conclusion There is, I am convinced, a fatal flaw in the part of the orthodox reasoning.… due to the failure of the classical doctrine to develop a satisfactory and realistic theory of the rate of interest.” The New Republic, LXXXII (1935), 36.Google Scholar

⁵² General Theory, p. 189.

⁵³ Economica, III (1936), 124.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Sec especially the running controversy in The Economic Journal in 1037 and 1938. In addition to Keynes, the participants included Bcrtil Ohlin, D. H. Robertson, R. G. Hawtrcy, and A. P. Lerncr.

⁵⁵ The Quarterly Journal of Economics, LI (1937), 216.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ The Economic Journal, XLVIII (1938), 318–19, 320.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ The Economic Journal, XLVII (1927), 668.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ General Theory, p. 207.

⁵⁹ See my “Silvio Gesell's Monetary Theory of Social Reform,” The American Economic Review, XXXII (1942).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ General Theory, p. 159.

⁶¹ The Times (London), 01 3, 1938, p. 13.Google Scholar

⁶² Laissez-faire and Communism, p. 69.

⁶³ Cf. Viner, Jacob, “Marshall's Economics, The Man and His Times,” The American Economic Review, XXXI (1941), 225.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ General Theory, p. 380.

⁶⁵ Essays in Persuasion, p. 327.

⁶⁶ Ibid., p. 343.

⁶⁷ Ibid., p. 324. The British election of 1945 seems to indicate that many of the “educated bourgeoisie” disagree with Keynes regarding membership in the Labour party. Approximately one half of the Labour Members of Parliament elected in the overwhelming Labour victory are from middle-class professions and trades.

⁶⁸ Ibid., p. 342.

⁶⁹ The Political Quarterly, I (1930), 110–24.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ How to Pay for the War; A Radical Plan for the Chancellor of the Exchequer (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1940), p. 5.Google Scholar

⁷¹ London: Farleigh Press, 1940.

⁷² London: Macmillan and Company, 1937.

⁷³ Laissez-faire and Communism, pp. 47–48.

⁷⁴ Ibid., p. 99.

⁷⁵ “I am no Marxian. Yet I sufficiently recognize the greatness of Marx to be offended at seeing him classed with Silvio Gesell and Major Douglas.”— Schumpeter, J. A., in his review of Keynes's General Theory in the Journal of the American Statistical Association, XXXI 1936), 791–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁶ For example, by Veblen, Thorstein in Absentee Ownership and Business Enterprise in Recent Times; the Case of America (New York: B.W. Huebsch, 1923Google Scholar) and by Berle, Adolf A. and Means, G. C. in The Modern Corporation and Private Property (New York and Chicago: Commerce Clearing House, 1932)Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ Laissez-faire and Communism, p. 64.

⁷⁸ The Times (London), 05 1,1927, p. 7.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ General Theory, p. 378.

⁸⁰ Laissez-faire and Communism, p. 130. There is no evidence from Keynes's published writings that his fundamental skepticism of and dislike for the economic structure of Soviet Russia ever changed in any important respect. On the contrary, such positive evidence as exists in occasional references in his later writings indicates a continuation of his earlier bias. See General Theory, pp. 380, 381; How to Pay for the War, pp. 7, 53, 55.

⁸¹ Laissez-faire and Communism, p. 131.

⁸³ See Tawney, R. H., Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (Pelican Books, 1938), p. 48Google Scholar. For Keynes's strictures on usury, see his General Theory, pp. 241, 340, 351–53. For Keynes's acceptance of the labor theory of value, see the General Theory, pp. 213–14.

⁸⁴ Heckscher, Eli F., Mercantilism (London: G. Allen and Unwin, 1935), II, esp. pp. 316–24.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ General Theory, p. 31.