The paper is dedicated to Suzanne de Brunhoff’s monetary thought and shows how her analysis of very concrete monetary and financial problems of her time led her to develop the most innovative contributions to Marxist theory of money since classical Marxism. Concepts such as non-contemporaneity of capitalism with itself, pseudo-social validation, conflict centralization, or State management of money and labor power reflect her profound analysis of the ways capitalism generates very particular relations to space and time. By looking at this spatio-temporal dimension of de Brunhoff’s concepts, this paper aims to reveal the novelty, power, and fruitfulness of her monetary analysis. The first part of the paper seeks to define the meaning of the concept of general equivalent, drawing on her reading of Karl Marx’s Capital, before situating her approach in relation to institutionalist theories of money. The second part considers de Brunhoff’s analysis of the particular time-spaces of capitalism.

Beginning in the 1960s, subfields claimed a central place in the production and dissemination of economic knowledge. Generalists were replaced by economists who specialized in the study of international economics, public economics, labor economics, or econometrics. New infrastructure emerged, including field-specific societies and field-specific journals (Backhouse and Cherrier 2017; Cherrier 2017; Cherrier and Rebours 2023; Desmarais-Tremblay, Johnson, and Sturn 2023; Desmarais-Tremblay and Svorenčik 2021; Svorenčik 2021). Some of the earliest movers were those interested in social choice and the political economy of governance. In 1963, a coalition of economists and political economists established the Committee for Non-Market Decision Making; a preliminary conference led to the creation of the Public Choice Society, an annual conference, and a specialized journal, Public Choice (Buchanan 2003; Medema 2011).1 Public Choice was quickly followed by the Journal of Human Resources (1965), the Journal of Economic Education (1969), the Journal of International Economics (1971), the Journal of Public Economics (1972), the Journal of Econometrics (1973), the Journal of Urban Economics (1974), the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management (1974), and the Journal of Comparative Economics (1977), all attached to newly formed societies and associations.

John Richard Hicks is famous for the contributions to general equilibrium theory and welfare economics that earned him the Nobel Prize in 1972 and for his interpretation of John Maynard Keynes's General Theory (1936). Hicks made these pathbreaking contributions to economic modeling in the 1930s, '40s and '50s. Following Axel Leijonhufvud's classification (1984, p. 28), these are the works of “Hicks the Younger.” “Hicks the Elder” formulated “Some Questions of Time in Economics” (Hicks 1976). There he refers to theories that adequately incorporate aspects of time as “economic theory in time” in contrast to “economic theory out of time.” Hicks argues that for the theory of capital and the theory of markets this distinction is of greatest importance (ibid., p. 139).

Recent studies have revalued Hazel Kyrk for her original works on consumption and the critique of neoclassical demand theory. Kyrk’s A Theory of Consumption (1923) opened up new perspectives for understanding the nature of consumption and revalued home economics as a central part of the economist agenda, taking distance from the first generation of home economists. This paper focuses on Kyrk’s post-1923 scientific production and professional activities. Our main purpose is to show her contributions to the quantitative foundations of consumption together with her attempt to feed contemporary research on consumers’ behavior with pragmatism, policy advice, and field knowledge. We selected specific issues: the education of consumers through information and a strategy of “critical consumption”; the analysis of strategic industries; the well-being of American families; and the importance of “invisible” objects (non-market activities) and their statistical processing.

The word VALUE, it is to be observed, has two different meanings, and sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys. The one may be called ‘value in use;’ the other, ‘value in exchange.’ The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently little or no value in exchange; and, on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no value in use. Nothing is more useful than water: but it will purchase scarce any thing; scarce any thing can be had in exchange for it. A diamond, on the contrary, has scarce any value in use; but a very great quantity of other goods may frequently be had in exchange for it (Smith 1776, I, iv, p. 42).

Austrian economics is arousing increasing interest, not to say enthusiasm, these days. No doubt this is in part due to the collapse of the planned economies of the Soviet type, which has lent credibility to the claims of Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek regarding the impossibility of rational economic calculation under socialism-claims which were disputed by the mainstream neoclassical economists of a generation ago. The phenomenon also reflects a relatively long-standing dissatisfaction with neoclassical economics. For many years it was the radical critics of capitalism who felt most keenly the attractions of alternative approaches in economics. Now, increasingly, champions of the market are coming to believe that neoclassical theory does not offer a deep and firm enough basis for asserting the virtues of the market system, and the counterproductive effects of government intervention therein.

The loan fund theory of capital was developed by the unheralded American economist, Herbert J. Davenport (1861-1931). Davenport's name has virtually disappeared from writings on the history of economic thought. Today, he seems best known as a teacher of Frank Knight at Cornell around 1915. Davenport wrote three major books during an 18-year period between 1896 and 1914. The first (1896) was a treatise based on what he called the “principle of sacrifice,” or subjective opportunity cost. His second book, Value and Distribution (1908), covered much of the same ground but also presented some original contributions. It marked his emergence as a professional economist, since he presented his ideas within the context of an appraisal of classical and neoclassical economic doctrine. Among other things, the book contained a penetrating, subjectivist critique of four ideas in the history of subjectivist economics: marginal utility, Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk's theory of capital, Friedrich Wieser's theory of cost, and Frank Fetter's theory of market interest. It also introduced the loan fund theory of capital, which is the topic of this paper.

The dominant metaphor of conceptual relativism, that of differing points of view, seems to betray an underlying paradox. Different points of view make sense, but only if there is a common co-ordinate system on which to plot them; yet the existence of a common system belies dramatic incomparability (Davidson, 1984, p. 184).

The works of Adam Smith are filled with quotable moments. The pin factory. The poor man’s son. The invisible hand. The butcher, the brewer, and the baker. The dog and the philosopher. The impartial spectator. The man of system and his chessboard. And our propensity to truck, barter, and exchange. All of these are so well known and so often quoted that I’ve had editors ask me just to refer to them in passing rather than quoting them in full.

This paper agrees with Friedrich August Hayek’s assertion in his 1945 Dublin lecture that the importance of Dutch physician Bernard Mandeville’s role in the history of economics had been overlooked and with his 1966 London lecture’s assertion that Mandeville’s important contribution qualified him as a master mind. Paul Sakmann’s and Albert Schatz’s studies of Mandeville’s eighteenth-century allegorical Fable of the Bees satire were acknowledged by Hayek as having influenced his formulation and development of the theory of spontaneous order extended from Scottish Enlightenment thinkers. Each of these two writers’ contribution to Mandeville and spontaneous order theory is considered as well as proposing a new source for the term “spontaneous order”—Schatz’s 1907‘le principe d’ordre spontané.’