Most people do not recognize the name Richard Cantillon. That is to be expected because most people don’t dig into detail beyond their chosen occupations or hobbies. Just mastering the complexities necessary to successfully navigate through life is challenging. Feeding and sheltering ourselves and our families is too often a full-time job.
We are all ignorant. Einstein, Thomas Edison, Bill Gates or other geniuses have massive areas of ignorance. Time is limited and knowledge is infinite. To be successful in one or two fields requires ignorance of other fields. That reality applies to everyone, including geniuses.
There is an important distinction between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is, or should be, a rational choice. Ignorance is not a sign of stupidity unless it is in your chosen field.
Richard Cantillon was an economist long ago. The Mises.org site describes him as follows:
Richard Cantillon (1680–1734) was the father of modern economics. Murray Rothbard called him “one of the most fascinating characters in the history of social or economic thought” and described him as “a Gallicized Irish merchant, banker, and adventurer who wrote the first treatise on economics more than four decades before the publication of the Wealth of Nations.”
Cantillon, and others, explained business cycles long ago. Yet many modern economists have no knowledge of Cantillon. Nor are they particularly aware of many of his successors.
That modern day economists don’t know important pioneers is an indictment of economic education. Despite the blatant educational deficiency, competent professionals in any field never stop learning. Most knowledge, I submit, is learned after the formal education. That is a necessity of mastering one’s field. To be ignorant in one’s profession is unacceptable. It is a indicative of stupidity or laziness.
This piece, written by Cantillon, explains business cycles. Had the profession not ignored his (and others) writings, it is likely we would have experienced fewer and less severe business cycles. None would have been severe enough to have been labelled a Great Depression. Nor would be in the economic mess we are currently in.
Perhaps more important, Keynes’ economic ideas would never have been accepted. They would have been dismissed as the nonsense they were and still are.
That would have resulted in much smaller government around the world and higher standards of living.
