Economic Life Trend

ONE
THE TREND OF ECONOMIC
THINKING1
The position of the economist in the intellectual life of our time is
unlike that of the practitioners of any other branch of knowledge.
Questions for whose solution his special knowledge is relevant are
probably more frequently encountered than questions related to any
other science. Yet, in large measure, this knowledge is disregarded and
in manyrespects public opinion even seems to move in a contrary
direction. Thus the economist appears to be hopelessly out of tune with
his time, giving unpractical advice to which his public is not disposed to
listen and having no influence upon contemporary events. Why is this?
The situation is not without precedent in the history of economic
thought; but it cannot be considered as normal, and thereis strong
reason to believe that it must be the result of a particular historical
situation. For the views at present held by the public can clearly be
traced to the economists of a generation or so ago. So that the fact is,
not that the teaching of the economist has no influence at all; on the
contrary, it may be very powerful. But it takes a long time to make its
influence felt, so that, ifthere is change, the new ideas tend to be
swamped by the domination of ideas which, in fact, have become
obsolete. Hence the recurring intellectual isolation of the economist.
The problem of the relation between the economist and public opinion
today resolves itself, therefore, into a question of the causes of the
intellectual changes which have conspired to bring about this cleavage.
It isthis subject which I have chosen as the main theme of this lecture.

TWO
ON BEING AN ECONOMIST1
It is reported of the greatest economist whom I have personally known2
that he used to say that if he had seven sons they should all study
economics. If this was meant to suggest the magnitude of the task
economists have to solve, this heroic resolution cannot be highly
enough commended. If itwas meant to suggest that the study of
economics is a sure path to personal happiness, I am afraid I have no
such cheerful message for you. And it may be that Carl Menger himself
later changed his views: when at last, at the age of sixty-two, he
produced one son, this son did not become an economist, though the
father lived to see him become a promising mathematician.
There is at least onekind of happiness which the pursuit of most
sciences promises but which is almost wholly denied to the economist.
The progress of the natural sciences often leads to unbounded
confidence in the future prospects of the human race, and provides the
natural scientist with the certainty that any important contribution to
knowledge which he makes will be used to improve the lot of men. Theeconomist’s lot, however, is to study a field in which, almost more than
any other, human folly displays itself. The scientist has no doubt that
the world is moving on to better and finer things, that the progress he
makes today will tomorrow be recognised and used. There is a glamour
about the natural sciences which expresses itself in the spirit and the
atmosphere in which it is pursued andreceived, in the prizes that wait
for the successful as in the satisfaction it can offer to most. What I want
to say to you tonight is a warning that, if you want any of this, if to
sustain you in the toil which the prolonged pursuit of any subject
requires, you want these clear signs of success, you had better leave
economics now and turn to one of the more fortunate other sciences. Not
only arethere no glittering prizes, no Nobel prizes3 and—I should have
said till recently—no fortunes and no peerages,4 for the economist. But
even to look for them, to aim at praise or public recognition, is almost

THREE
TWO TYPES OF MIND1
Accident had early drawn my attention to the contrast between two
types of scientific thinking which I have since again and again been
watching with growing...