http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.com/2011/11/canonical-classical-model-of-political.html
In his 1991 article, "'The Canonical Classical Model of Political Economy' in 1808, as Viewed from 1825: Thomas Chalmers on the 'National Resources,'" A. M. C. Waterman speculated that Chalmers's 1808 treatise was a sort of missing link between Malthus's *Essay on Population* and Ricardo's *Principles of Political Economy.* My interest in Chalmers arises from a passage in an 1820 Edinburgh Review article by him, "State and Prospects of Manufactures," in which Chalmers presented the following "fixed amount of work" proposition: "there is a certain quantity of work to be done;<http://books.google.ca/books?id=JT8vacE6zqQC&lpg=PA385&ots=TZcBQuVj1r&dq=does%20not%20admit%20of%20being%20much%20extended%2C%20merely%20on%20the%20temptation%20of%20labour%20being%20offered%20at%20a%20cheaper&pg=PA385&ci=79%2C378%2C794%2C213&source=bookclip>and this quantity, generally speaking, does not admit of being much extended, merely on the temptation of labour being offered at a cheaper rate." Chalmers presented a extremely interesting argument both in terms of a rationale for the "certain quantity of work" claim and an analysis of the consequences of the proposition. He presented a similar argument, and some identical phrasing, in an 1826 book, *The Christian and Civic Economy of Large Towns*. What makes Chalmers's argument especially intriguing is that in August of 1832 E. C. Tufnell consulted with Chalmers in preparation for his activities on as a investigator for the Royal Commission on the Employment of Children in Factories. Tufnell subsequently authored a virulently anti-union pamphlet, Character, object and effects of trades unions<http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.com/2011/02/mr-tufnells-pamphlet-versus-mr-ewarts.html>, published anonymously in which he denounced the advocacy of the Ten-hour Bill by cotton-spinning operatives on the grounds that it was based on a clumsy "fallacy." My conjecture is that Tufnell's denunciation is the *locus classicus* of the lump-of-labor fallacy claim. The lump-of-labor fallacy has been called "one of the best-known fallacies in economics." I dispute that, having written two published articles on the alleged fallacy that only dig deeper and deeper into paradox. The fallacy claim has been described by A.C. Pigou and Maurice Dobb as itself an *ignoratio elenchi* fallacy. But it seems to me that there is something even stranger going on here, considering the "missing link" hypothesis. I'll just speculate and say that perhaps the fallacy claim was (and is) an attempt to *selectively* dismiss some of the unwanted deductions from political economy while retaining others that are more congenial to the "system of natural liberty" orthodoxy. Now we are confronted with not one but two "missing links": Chapman as the missing link between Marshall and Keynes in neoclassical and Chalmers as the missing link in classical political economy between Malthus and Ricardo. -- Sandwichman
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
