350 THE GENERAL THEORY OF EMPLOYMENT bk. vi

iv

The mercantilists perceived the existence of theproblem without being able to push their analysis to thepoint of solving it. But the classical school ignoredthe problem, as a consequence of introducing into theirpremisses conditions which involved its non-existence;with the result of creating a cleavage between the con-clusions of economic theory and those of commonsense. The extraordinary achievement of the classicaltheory was to overcome the beliefs of the “natural man”and, at the same time, to be wrong. As ProfessorHeckscher expresses it:

If, then, the underlying attitude towards money and thematerial from which money was created did not alter in theperiod between the Crusades and the 18th century, it followsthat we are dealing with deep-rooted notions. Perhaps thesame notions have persisted even beyond the 500 yearsincluded in that period, even though not nearly to the samedegree as the “fear of goods”. . . . With the exception of theperiod of laissez-faire, no age has been free from these ideas.It was only the unique intellectual tenacity of laissez-fairethat for a time overcame the beliefs of the “natural man” onthis point. 1

It required the unqualified faith of doctrinaire laissez-faireto wipe out the “fear of goods” . . . [which] is the mostnatural attitude of the “natural man” in a money economy.Free Trade denied the existence of factors which appeared tobe obvious, and was doomed to be discredited in the eyes ofthe man in the street as soon as laissez-faire could no longerhold the minds of men enchained in its ideology. 2

I remember Bonar Law ’s mingled rage and per-plexity in face of the economists, because they weredenying what was obvious. He was deeply troubledfor an explanation. One recurs to the analogy between

1 Heckscher, op. cit. vol. ii. pp. 176-7.

2 Op. cit. vol. ii. p. 335.