New light on Lauchlin Currie's monetary economics in the new deal and beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This special issue of the Journal of Economic Studies has been produced to mark, as nearly as possible, the 10th anniversary of Lauchlin Currie's death. He was born in the fishing village of New Dublin in Nova Scotia, Canada, September 8, 1902 and died in Bogotá, Colombia, December 23, 1993. An economist, described as the intellectual leader of the spending wing of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal (Herbert Stein, 1969, p. 165), Currie contributed several articles and reviews to this Journal over the last two decades of his long and extraordinarily varied career (Currie, 1974, 1975, 1976a, 1979, 1981a, b, 1983, 1990). Accordingly, the Journal's editor suggested that we mark the occasion with a special issue containing some of his hitherto unpublished papers and memoranda in the field of monetary theory and policy. As Humphrey (2003), Laidler (1993, 1999), and Steindl (1995) have explained, Currie's publications in the early 1930s presented a diagnosis of the causes of the 1929-1932 collapse in the US economy that was substantially the same as that advanced much later by Friedman and Schwartz (1963) in their A Monetary History of the United States. In that celebrated work, Friedman and Schwartz overlooked Currie's earlier contributions. Brunner, who wrote a long foreword for the 1968 reprint of Currie's (1934a) Supply and Control of Money in the United States, gave Currie to believe that the neglect was partly due to the damage that his reputation suffered during the McCarthy era, and/or to the notion that a radical New Dealer could not also be an upholder of what became known as the conservative "monetarist" school (Sandilands, 1990, p.157)[1]. However, in light of Laidler's reappraisal of Currie's early work, Friedman later proffered an explicit mea culpa for his earlier neglect (Laidler, 1993, p.1077n.12).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".