W. H. Hutt (1899–1988)

This is a short book and the theory it contains constitutes only one fourth of it. For the first 110 pages the author presents a literature review of mostly 19th century English scholarship on collective bargaining. Needless to say, this isn't very riveting reading in the 21st century. I had almost given up my hope of finding anything useful here, but then suddenly, without any forewarning, the author begins to present his own theory. After 35 very short pages, he is finished. As far as I can tell this is a very knowledgeable presentation, but its extreme brevity makes it difficult to interpret. Many more explanatory words would have been needed to help readers understand the intended meaning. It's unfortunate that the author didn't make a little extra effort to make this book more readable.… (mere)

An original and very easy-to-read book on an important subject. It's been years since I read it, but, uh, my memory of it is very clear. He basically defines Say's Law as "supplies in general are demands in general." He makes fun of Keynes, rakes him through the coals for misconceiving Say's Law in a wilful way. Hutt is always a source for "opinionated" and no-holds-barred disputation.

Still, he's a very clear writer, and this is a subject requiring clarity, that's for sure.

That being said, and my admiration for the book notwithstanding, Thomas Sowell's book on Say's Law is a product of wider scholarship, and far more reliable.… (mere)

The great economist Sir John Hicks commented, somewhere (I forget where), on how "truculent" this book is. Well, yes. Economist W. H. Hutt understood economics, and was appalled at what we would now call the "political correctness" of his age regarding unions. He knew what most economists understood about wages and bargaining. He grasped the basic theory better than most, but he wasn't alone. But he was almost alone in challenging the namby-pamby, bend-over-backwards niceness and tolerance towards simple bad economics and disastrous policy regarding unions.

Yes, this is still a controversial book. Well worth reading, though. Perhaps you should read Hicks's work on wage theory, in tandem. Compare. Not only economic theory, not merely history, but the art of rhetoric.

Hicks comes off as more civil, yes. But what if Hutt was right (as I think he was, on the whole); what if unions and pro-union policy warped much of economic life for much of the last century, exacerbating bust, twisting booms, and impoverishing many for an organized few?

What if?

Well, good question. Read the book. And answer.… (mere)