Talk:Richard Cantillon

Priority Scale for Economics

I changed the priority of the article to "high", given that I believe it fulfills the following standards,

Subject is important but not vital to a lay person's overview of economics. Broad economic topics taught at the undergraduate college level are likely of high importance. This includes distinguished economists that may not be well-known outside the field.

It was previously rated at "mid", described as,

Subject fills in more minor details of economics, or adds a depth of understanding to the field. A practicing economist would find these subjects useful, but lay people would likely not.

Discerned from the content of the article, it's clear that Richard Cantillon is far more than a "minor detail of economics", and if it wasn't for the fact that Adam Smith blotted a previous tradition of economic thought, it might be the case that Cantillon could even be considered of "top" priority. In any case, Richard Cantillon is very important—albeit not vital—to a lay person's overview of economics. That Cantillon may have written the first complete treatise on economics, and that he is a runner for "father of political economy", is relatively important, and much more than a "minor detail". Of course, Cantillon is a distinguished economist, despite not being known outside of his field. JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Richard Cantillon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll be doing this review. Looks very well researched.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent read. Since I expect you'll be pushing this one on towards FAC, I'm giving you a tougher review than normal for a GAN. I really only have comments for the initial sections since after that I dug in and did it myself.

• Lede

"little available information on Cantillon the man" Perhaps, "little available information on Cantillon's life"

"Cantillon speculated in and helped organize" Logically, wouldn't he do that in the opposite order? You also might want to do a quick mention of the fate of the Mississippi Company here, which would let you do just a passing reference in the third paragraph.

" great wealth. Unfortunately, his great wealth" Perhaps change one of the "great wealths" to something else? "Unfortunately" is probably a POV term that should be avoided.

" by Jevons" link? And I'm unclear on why "rediscovery" is in quotes.

I find phrases such as "as aforementioned" and "among others" totally unnecessary. A shorter number of words is generally preferable.

• Biography

"shrouded in mystery" A little too dramatic for an encyclopedia, I think. Perhaps "Although there are many uncertainties ..." Also, a lot of people really don't like the word "while" when used as a synonym for "Although".

" Born in County Kerry, Ireland," This declarative phrase, part of an ablative, I believe, reads oddly in combination with the previous sentence. Perhaps reverse the order of the first two sentences. "the son of" is probably more common than "son to".

" found himself" was. You might also want to mention what war was going on.

"organized" As Cantillon was British, you must use British forms, so "organised".

• "Cantillon became involved in the banking industry" What did he do?

General comments:

Look for the shortest way of saying something.

See if you can get someone better versed in economics than me to give it a copyedit.

You may be a bit too technical in the economics sections, but I'm not certain.

Anyway, it passes.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, and especially for the copyedit (a lot of spelling mistakes on my part)! The specific suggestions you've made have been followed. I will see if someone is willing to copyedit the article, and I will take another look at the language used in the technical part of the article. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Some problems

This is indeed a well written and extensive article (especially by the standards of other economics-related articles) and normally I would not bring these up but it is a main-page featured article so... well, it's not a FA article. First, good portions of the text are written from a very obvious Austrian school POV which make clumsy attempts at stuffing Cantillion into the Austrian pantheon. This paragraph in particular exemplifies this:

Economist Murray Rothbard credits Cantillon with being one of the first theorists to isolate economic phenomenon with simple models, where otherwise uncontrollable variables can be fixed.[47] Economist Jörg Guido Hülsmann likens some of the models presented in Essai, which assume constant equilibrium, to Ludwig von Mises's concept of the "evenly rotating economy".[48] Cantillon made frequent use of the concept of ceteris paribus throughout Essai in an attempt to neutralize independent variables.[49] Furthermore, he is credited with employing a methodology similar to Carl Menger's methodological individualism,[50] by deducing complex phenomena from simple observations.[51]

While Rothbard's views are notable they are a bit fringe - this isn't a problem of pov so much as undue weight. There's been plenty written on Cantillon by more mainstream economists and it would be better to include their views. The other parts of the paragraph are all cited to the Von Mises Institute which while a semi-academic institution (and God bless those Austrians) is generally not considered as a RS on Wikipedia - except perhaps as a source for the views of the Austrians themselves (and even then - of current-day Austrians, not the historical school). The non-reliability of this source is exemplified in the statement "a methodology similar to Carl Menger's methodological individualism,[50] by deducing complex phenomena from simple observations" which seems to imply that "deducing complex phenomena from simple observations" is somehow particular to the Austrian school, or Menger and Cantillion, rather than to Economics in general or even more broadly science. Also it seems to conflate "deducing complex phenomena from simple observations" with "methodological individualism" even though these are a completely different specie of beast and logically unrelated. Having said all that, the emphasis that Cantillion placed on "entrepreneurship" DID in fact significantly influence the latter development of Austrian (and non-Austrian) economics. But let's not overdo it.

Aside from Austrian POV pushing and over reliance on non reliable sources the article has a big gaping hole in it - where's the stuff on circular flow (another super crappy economics article btw), the concept that Cantillion is perhaps best remembered for today? Or the fact that Cantillion's work was in some sense one of the first attempts at formalizing a general equilibrium concept of the economy?

The stuff on his personal life and such is okay though. But this shouldn't be up on the main page as a FA. It should go to FAR and get delisted back to GA status (which it deserves).radek (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Radek,

I think your criticism is a bit unfair, especially since you neglect to check the actual references used (even in the paragraph you quote; from references 47–51, Rothbard is used once—by the way, that section on methodology is attributed to Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek). The sources were actually rigorously checked both during the actual featured article candidacy, and the two days in which the article was put through a peer review (in fact, the one reviewer for the peer review focused entirely on the referencing). The most common reference, in any case, is Anthony Brewer (who is not an Austrian). Higgs is not cited, because I don't own Higgs's edition of Essai, but he is Brewer's principle source.

If you check the sources, I used every single academic paper I could find, written by both Austrians and neoclassicals. Austrian references are used heavily, but that is because the Austrians have committed to the most extensive history of Cantillon, other than Higgs and Brewer (the latter of which, again, is used as the principle reference for this article). Most citations, in any case, cite multiple authors to provide neutrality and accuracy.

Your right that this doesn't extensively cover every detail of Cantillon's theory (this is not Brewer's book, in any case). I covered what I could find in my sources, without going into so much detail that the article be rendered completely illegible to the average reader. By the way, I would do a search for "equilibrium" through the article, because it is covered. JonCatalán^(Talk) 06:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: By the way, I am interesting is hearing your case as to why the Ludwig von Mises Institute is not a reliable source, and why other academic institutes are more reliable. Is it because you disagree with Austrian theory? If that's the case, I'm not sure that that is a good case for unreliability. By the same logic, every other particular school of thought would be unreliable (or, is reliability decided by who is more popular?). JonCatalán^(Talk) 06:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The question of reliability of the Von Mises Institutes has come up several times before (if you give me a bit of time I can dig up the diffs from past discussions) both on RSN and Project:Economics and the consensus was that in general it is not a reliable source. And no, it's not that I disagree with Austrian theory per se - in fact certain aspects of it I'm quite sympathetic to - it's more about the single minded and self referential nature of the institute that is at issue here. Basically anything published by the institute should be treated as a SPS since generally it is not peer reviewed by outside scholars.

Omitting circular flow and not even mentioning general equilibrium is a bit more than failing to "extensively cover every detail of Cantillion's theory" - it's a major omission. Those are things that he is still mostly remembered for, as reflected for example by the fact that pretty much every Principles of Macroeconomics book has a circular flow diagram, straight out of Cantillion's theory.

In order to be more constructive and not just critique though, I'll try to dig up some sources and add them to the article.radek (talk) 06:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again, general equilibrium is presented throughout the article in the actual form Cantillon "developed" it. In fact, where it is mentioned, Cantillon's Essai is itself referenced (along with other, modern references). Also, Ludwig von Mises Insitute's reliability was brought up during the peer review, by the same reviewer who supported its candidacy (who is not an Austrian, by the way). Articles, including those published as Mises Daily, are peer reviewed (although Mises Daily less rigorously than the institute's academic journal articles). Few journals, in any case, are reviewed by impartial reviewers, so I'm not sure if that's even a fair method of quantifying the institute's reliability. JonCatalán^(Talk) 07:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Essai sur la nature du commerce en général

Why the title in French "Essai sur la nature du commerce en général" become here "Essai Sur La Nature Du Commerce En Général" with those uppercases? 204.174.87.29 (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Following capitalization rules for titles. There are, however, too many capital letters in the current presentation. I've corrected it. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Debtors and Creditors

Shouldn't the "debtors" on the bottom line of the first paragraph read "creditors"; debtors are unlikely to pursue a man to whom they owe money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Librarian16 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No, debtors is correct. There isn't much information on Cantillon's life, but presumably it would be to kill the man to whom they owe large quantities of money. JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Message

I'm puzzled as to how this article can be a Featured Article... Jonas Vinther (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Translation of Essay on the Nature of Trade in General

• 
  Traduit de l'anglois.
• 
  Translated by ....

The first French edition from 1755 titled Essai sur la Nature du Commerce en Général says on its cover that the book is translated from English (Traduit de l'anglois'.').

On the other hand, the cover of the Ludwig von Mises Institute's edition claims the book is translated from French.

The article merely says: Written in 1730, it was published in French in 1755, and was translated into English by Henry Higgs in 1932.

So, my question is basically:

In what language was the book first written?

--93.193.12.53 (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the info printed on the cover of the 1755 ed (by the printer) was incorrect, as later discovered and explicated by the 19th-century scholars who re-"discovered" Cantillon much later. Those folks ascertained it was originally written, by R. Cantillon, in French. There were a number of other funny things that the 1755 printer got wrong (remember, printer was printing a manuscript from one P. Cantillon (a son? I think so, would have to check) who provided what (his father?) R. Cantillon wrote before 1734, since that is the year that R. Cantillon died in a house fire, determined to have been set by some folks as a cover for stealing his silver, etc. So the whole thing is complicated.

This is all explicated, I believe, in the sources from Higgs, and possibly Jevons as well. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Move Cantillon Effect to its own page?

I found it difficult to get a precise, accessible treatment of this term. The German Language Wikipedia has a dedicated article on this (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantillon-Effekt) which I translated in order to get what I needed.

Any views on translating the German article into the English Wikipedia?

Bradqwood (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Failure to define "specie"

This article mentions the term "specie" but never defines this term, and the Wikipedia article it is wikilinked to (Commodity money) also doesn't define "specie." Can we correct this situation by adding a few words defining "specie" the first time it appears in this article (since there appears to be no proper Wikipedia article about this subject)? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)