by Schüller
[Title Page and Table of Contents]: Title page and table of contents for Richard Schüller's 1895 work defending classical economics against its critics. The book is dedicated to Carl Menger and outlines chapters addressing various abstractions attributed to the classical school, such as cultural relativity, human differences, egoism, and economic policy. [Introduction: The Defense of Classical Economics]: Schüller introduces the necessity of re-evaluating classical economics, arguing that the German Historical School has unfairly maligned Smith and his followers. He asserts that a correct understanding of classical principles is vital not only for economic theory but also for modern social and economic policy, which he claims has become unprincipled and opportunistic due to the influence of the Historical School. [Chapter 1: Abstraction from Cultural, Temporal, and Local Conditions]: Schüller refutes the Historical School's claim (specifically Lujo Brentano's) that classical economists ignored cultural, temporal, and local contexts. By citing extensive passages from Smith, Say, Ricardo, and Malthus, he demonstrates that they deeply considered factors like national character, climate, legal institutions, and the specific power imbalances in labor contracts. He argues that the Historical School's focus on descriptive detail has led them to overlook the sound theoretical balance between general laws and specific exceptions found in classical works. [Chapter 2: Abstraction from Differences Between Individuals]: Schüller addresses the accusation that classical economics treats all humans as identical 'abstract' beings. He shows that Smith, Say, and Ricardo explicitly recognized differences in natural talent, class, profession, and national character. He critiques Brentano's aesthetic analogy of 'classical sculpture' versus 'wrinkles and folds,' arguing that scientific abstraction requires focusing on essential traits rather than every empirical detail, and concludes that the classical school's recognition of human variety was fundamental to their theories of value and distribution. [Refutation of the Egoism Charge in Classical Economics]: Schüller refutes the claim that classical economists viewed humans as driven solely by egoism. By citing specific passages from Smith, Say, Ricardo, and Malthus, he demonstrates that they recognized a wide range of motivations including benevolence, patriotism, habit, and sympathy. He argues that while self-interest is a primary driver in economic exchange, the classical masters never ignored the moral and social dimensions of human behavior. [The Role of Error, Folly, and Ignorance in Classical Theory]: This section challenges the notion that classical economics assumed perfect rationality or that individuals always know their own best interest. Schüller provides evidence that Smith, Ricardo, and Malthus explicitly accounted for human folly, ignorance, and indolence. He highlights Smith's observations on the ignorance of laborers and landowners, and Malthus's emphasis on how 'indolence' and 'lack of foresight' act as significant economic factors. [Analysis of Misquoted Passages and the Conflict of Interests]: Schüller examines specific passages frequently used by the Historical School to attack classical economics, such as Smith's 'butcher and baker' quote and the 'invisible hand'. He argues that these quotes are often taken out of context or mistranslated (e.g., omitting qualifiers like 'frequently'). Furthermore, he demonstrates that classical economists deeply understood the conflicts of interest between different social classes and between private and public interests, refuting the charge of a naive 'harmony of interests' doctrine. [Wirtschaftspolitik: Relativität wirtschaftspolitischer Massnahmen]: Schüller defends classical economists against the Historical School's charge of dogmatic absolutism. He demonstrates that Smith, Say, Ricardo, and Malthus explicitly recognized the relativity of economic policies to historical circumstances, advocating for gradual reforms rather than radical, immediate changes. The segment includes numerous citations showing their awareness of how laws must adapt to the 'temper of the times' and specific national conditions. [Das Eingreifen der Regierung in die persönliche Freiheit im öffentlichen Interesse]: This section refutes the idea that classical economists demanded absolute individual freedom without restraint. Schüller provides evidence that Smith, Say, Ricardo, and Malthus supported state intervention to prevent fraud, ensure public safety, regulate banking, protect health (sanitation), and manage natural resources like forests and mines when the collective interest was at stake. [Actives Eingreifen der Regierung in die Volkswirtschaft]: Schüller examines the positive duties of the state in classical theory, moving beyond the 'night-watchman' caricature. He details their support for public works, education, and strategic trade protections (e.g., Navigation Acts, infant industry support). Furthermore, he highlights their deep concern for the working class, citing their support for truck-system bans, child labor regulations, and public works during crises, concluding that the Historical School's critique is based on a misunderstanding of classical texts.
Title page and table of contents for Richard Schüller's 1895 work defending classical economics against its critics. The book is dedicated to Carl Menger and outlines chapters addressing various abstractions attributed to the classical school, such as cultural relativity, human differences, egoism, and economic policy.
Read full textSchüller introduces the necessity of re-evaluating classical economics, arguing that the German Historical School has unfairly maligned Smith and his followers. He asserts that a correct understanding of classical principles is vital not only for economic theory but also for modern social and economic policy, which he claims has become unprincipled and opportunistic due to the influence of the Historical School.
Read full textSchüller refutes the Historical School's claim (specifically Lujo Brentano's) that classical economists ignored cultural, temporal, and local contexts. By citing extensive passages from Smith, Say, Ricardo, and Malthus, he demonstrates that they deeply considered factors like national character, climate, legal institutions, and the specific power imbalances in labor contracts. He argues that the Historical School's focus on descriptive detail has led them to overlook the sound theoretical balance between general laws and specific exceptions found in classical works.
Read full textSchüller addresses the accusation that classical economics treats all humans as identical 'abstract' beings. He shows that Smith, Say, and Ricardo explicitly recognized differences in natural talent, class, profession, and national character. He critiques Brentano's aesthetic analogy of 'classical sculpture' versus 'wrinkles and folds,' arguing that scientific abstraction requires focusing on essential traits rather than every empirical detail, and concludes that the classical school's recognition of human variety was fundamental to their theories of value and distribution.
Read full textSchüller refutes the claim that classical economists viewed humans as driven solely by egoism. By citing specific passages from Smith, Say, Ricardo, and Malthus, he demonstrates that they recognized a wide range of motivations including benevolence, patriotism, habit, and sympathy. He argues that while self-interest is a primary driver in economic exchange, the classical masters never ignored the moral and social dimensions of human behavior.
Read full textThis section challenges the notion that classical economics assumed perfect rationality or that individuals always know their own best interest. Schüller provides evidence that Smith, Ricardo, and Malthus explicitly accounted for human folly, ignorance, and indolence. He highlights Smith's observations on the ignorance of laborers and landowners, and Malthus's emphasis on how 'indolence' and 'lack of foresight' act as significant economic factors.
Read full textSchüller examines specific passages frequently used by the Historical School to attack classical economics, such as Smith's 'butcher and baker' quote and the 'invisible hand'. He argues that these quotes are often taken out of context or mistranslated (e.g., omitting qualifiers like 'frequently'). Furthermore, he demonstrates that classical economists deeply understood the conflicts of interest between different social classes and between private and public interests, refuting the charge of a naive 'harmony of interests' doctrine.
Read full textSchüller defends classical economists against the Historical School's charge of dogmatic absolutism. He demonstrates that Smith, Say, Ricardo, and Malthus explicitly recognized the relativity of economic policies to historical circumstances, advocating for gradual reforms rather than radical, immediate changes. The segment includes numerous citations showing their awareness of how laws must adapt to the 'temper of the times' and specific national conditions.
Read full textThis section refutes the idea that classical economists demanded absolute individual freedom without restraint. Schüller provides evidence that Smith, Say, Ricardo, and Malthus supported state intervention to prevent fraud, ensure public safety, regulate banking, protect health (sanitation), and manage natural resources like forests and mines when the collective interest was at stake.
Read full textSchüller examines the positive duties of the state in classical theory, moving beyond the 'night-watchman' caricature. He details their support for public works, education, and strategic trade protections (e.g., Navigation Acts, infant industry support). Furthermore, he highlights their deep concern for the working class, citing their support for truck-system bans, child labor regulations, and public works during crises, concluding that the Historical School's critique is based on a misunderstanding of classical texts.
Read full text