Jennifer Burns

But at that point in time, late 19th century, a model is something like a physicist does. Like think of like an inclined plane and how fast does the ball roll from one to the other. It's a physical representation of the world. And eventually economists will start to create mathematical representations of the world. But we're not quite there yet. So we're in the late 19th century.

But at that point in time, late 19th century, a model is something like a physicist does. Like think of like an inclined plane and how fast does the ball roll from one to the other. It's a physical representation of the world. And eventually economists will start to create mathematical representations of the world. But we're not quite there yet. So we're in the late 19th century.

But at that point in time, late 19th century, a model is something like a physicist does. Like think of like an inclined plane and how fast does the ball roll from one to the other. It's a physical representation of the world. And eventually economists will start to create mathematical representations of the world. But we're not quite there yet. So we're in the late 19th century.

We have this fissure. We have this introduction of marginal analysis that marks the juncture from classical economics to economics. So let's say now we have economics, but we still have this fissure between historical thinking and let's call it natural law thinking. That's not quite right, but physical laws versus contingency thinking.

We have this fissure. We have this introduction of marginal analysis that marks the juncture from classical economics to economics. So let's say now we have economics, but we still have this fissure between historical thinking and let's call it natural law thinking. That's not quite right, but physical laws versus contingency thinking.

We have this fissure. We have this introduction of marginal analysis that marks the juncture from classical economics to economics. So let's say now we have economics, but we still have this fissure between historical thinking and let's call it natural law thinking. That's not quite right, but physical laws versus contingency thinking.

And then in the United States, this ends up mapping onto debates about capitalism. And so more historically minded economists tend to be interested in the progressive movement, which is invested in taming and regulating industrial capitalism and changing its excesses, you know, factory safety laws, wage laws, working conditions laws, etc.

And then in the United States, this ends up mapping onto debates about capitalism. And so more historically minded economists tend to be interested in the progressive movement, which is invested in taming and regulating industrial capitalism and changing its excesses, you know, factory safety laws, wage laws, working conditions laws, etc.

And then in the United States, this ends up mapping onto debates about capitalism. And so more historically minded economists tend to be interested in the progressive movement, which is invested in taming and regulating industrial capitalism and changing its excesses, you know, factory safety laws, wage laws, working conditions laws, etc.

Yet in general, American economists all use marginal analysis just in different ways. The ones who are more drawn to marginal analysis become known as neoclassical economists. They're neoclassical. The neo is because they're using marginal analysis. The classical is because they don't think we need to change the way the economy operates or the government operates. They're not progressive.

Yet in general, American economists all use marginal analysis just in different ways. The ones who are more drawn to marginal analysis become known as neoclassical economists. They're neoclassical. The neo is because they're using marginal analysis. The classical is because they don't think we need to change the way the economy operates or the government operates. They're not progressive.

Yet in general, American economists all use marginal analysis just in different ways. The ones who are more drawn to marginal analysis become known as neoclassical economists. They're neoclassical. The neo is because they're using marginal analysis. The classical is because they don't think we need to change the way the economy operates or the government operates. They're not progressive.

Whereas the progressives are saying things like we need to use social control. The state and the people collectively and democratically need to control the way economics unfolds and make sure things are fair and equal. So that school of thought becomes known as institutional economics in the United States by the 20th century. So it's part of the progressive movement, late 19th century.

Whereas the progressives are saying things like we need to use social control. The state and the people collectively and democratically need to control the way economics unfolds and make sure things are fair and equal. So that school of thought becomes known as institutional economics in the United States by the 20th century. So it's part of the progressive movement, late 19th century.

Whereas the progressives are saying things like we need to use social control. The state and the people collectively and democratically need to control the way economics unfolds and make sure things are fair and equal. So that school of thought becomes known as institutional economics in the United States by the 20th century. So it's part of the progressive movement, late 19th century.

Into the 20th century, it really becomes institutional economics, right? And it's quite dominant. And the neoclassical economists are still there, but they're very much a minority. And Frank Knight, Milton Friedman's teacher, is one of the minority neoclassical economists. And the institutionalists are much more progressive still.

Into the 20th century, it really becomes institutional economics, right? And it's quite dominant. And the neoclassical economists are still there, but they're very much a minority. And Frank Knight, Milton Friedman's teacher, is one of the minority neoclassical economists. And the institutionalists are much more progressive still.

Into the 20th century, it really becomes institutional economics, right? And it's quite dominant. And the neoclassical economists are still there, but they're very much a minority. And Frank Knight, Milton Friedman's teacher, is one of the minority neoclassical economists. And the institutionalists are much more progressive still.

Yes, yes, exactly right. So this is the situation in the 1920s, but... The other piece I should mention is the first generation of progressive economists were very radical. They were closely allied with the socialist movement, with labor radicalism, and many of them lost their jobs at universities. This kind of connects to the early, the dawn of academic freedom. This is before academic freedom.

Yes, yes, exactly right. So this is the situation in the 1920s, but... The other piece I should mention is the first generation of progressive economists were very radical. They were closely allied with the socialist movement, with labor radicalism, and many of them lost their jobs at universities. This kind of connects to the early, the dawn of academic freedom. This is before academic freedom.