7 Moffat's “Unorthodox” Critique

Abstract

Although he wrote number of articles and two important books on political economy, contributions of Robert Scott Moffat, British author/essayist (1834-1895), are less well known than those of many of his contemporaries. He was lucid, forceful writer whose works were often at odds with premises of received economic doctrine. In focusing on shortcomings of orthodox economics his efforts fell outside classical mainstream, and perhaps this may have been factor in his receiving less attention than did other writers of his day. His first book, titled The Economy of Consumption, appeared in 1878, and in it Moffat, in tradition of earlier critics of similar persuasion (Lauderdale, Chalmers, Sismondi), questions efficacy of competitive industrial organization in general, and inherent ability of system to avoid recurrent episodes of general overproduction in particular. Probably because of its length and fact that it was rather difficult book to read, it did not enjoy very wide audience. Even so, book's impact was of sufficient importance to provoke T. W. Hutchison into recognizing Moffat as one among very few nonsocialist writers since Thomas Malthus to question orthodox formula about impossibility of general over-production. (1) The second book, Mr. Henry George Orthodox, published in 1885, is lengthy effort (296 pages) at an critique of Progress and Poverty (2)--an unorthodox critique because Moffat attempts to integrate his appraisal of economics of Henry George into his objections to orthodox economics of David Ricardo and J. S. Mill. He chooses this approach because it enables him to expound further on his own reservations concerning orthodox economics, and at same time provides him with convenient reference for analysis of George's work. The book, therefore, is designed to serve more than one purpose: as vehicle to continue his attack on certain tenets of orthodoxy on one hand, and, on other, as critical review of Progress and Poverty. Because much of Moffat's criticism of Henry George stems, in fact, from his preoccupation and disenchantment with orthodox economics, not surprisingly, he proceeds to reject methodically those parts of Progress and Poverty that he perceives as outgrowths of Ricardo-Mill principles, providing detailed commentary and explanations and, in process, often citing his own The Economy of Consumption for support. Those portions that he admits have certain uniqueness, on other hand, he more often than not is inclined to dismiss as being rhetorical and scientifically or economically unsound. This distinctive method of critique does not lack thoroughness. Systematically, and in some detail, Moffat discusses each subject in turn: Population, Wages and Capital, Laws of Distribution, Dynamics, book by book, chapter by chapter through book 4. He gives shorter treatment to chapters on Remedy and Laws of Human Progress found in books 5 through 10, evidently feeling that nature of topics warranted only summary evaluation. In separate section there are an appraisal of George as an economist, commentary on theory of rent, and reference to two rival theories of labor and At only one point does Moffat depart from order of topics as they are arranged in Progress and Poverty. He chooses to discuss theory of population before discussing topic of wages, maintaining that a clear view of problem of population is indispensable to any useful discussion of problem of wages. More than neatness is implied by this change. In reversing order of first and second books Moffat hopes to reveal an error in George's thinking concerning sequential relationship between level of wages and growth in population, source of labor supply. Noting that George is the boldest of opponents to Malthus, he proceeds initially to examine in great length George's objections to Malthusian theory and its related doctrine, wages-fund theory. …