On the fiftieth birthday of my Foundations of Economic Analysis, a deluxe edition of it was embalmed in the German Klassiker der Nationalokonomie series alongside of Adam Smith, Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk, Irving Fisher, and many other illustrious suspects. With it, as customary, was published a slim volume in German, a Vademecum, with review essays by Jurg Niehans, Carl-Christian von Weizsacker, and a foreword by the editor Bertram Schefold. By invitation, like Tom Sawyer at his own funeral, I provided for German translation my own recollections under the title "How Foundations Came to Be." Here is the English original, slightly abridged; for some technicalities, readers are referred to the full German text. I remembered much, and, with the perspective of time, learned not a little.

A FLAGRANT ERROR dogged James Steuart, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Barton, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, and classical writers generally. Modern commentators on classicism are enough tempted by the fallacy to generally overlook it as a vital flaw in the earlier writers. This fallay can be called classically classical-not in the sense of being the greatest error in the classical paradigm (an award that would be hard even to define) but-in the sense that modern scholars ignorant of pre-1900 literature would be little tempted by it. I do not denigrate or patronize a great writer of the past, such as David Ricardo, when I objectively delineate his hits and misses. The fallacy can be simply put. Fixed capitals are prejudicial to wages and the demand for labor; circulating capitals (wage fund items that represent outlays paid to workers at the beginning of a period of production, which are not recouped until the end of that period of production and which of course bear an interest or profit rate during the transition) are allegedly favorable to the real rate and to the demand for labor. Fixed capitals are durable produced inputs that render their services over a number of different production periods. Circulating capitals are produced inputs used up within one period of production; they are relatable to, but distinguishable from, wage fund advances paid to workers at the beginning of a period of production, to be recouped at its end along with an interest or profit return. In the minds of heterodox economists and the lay public generally, a technological change that made machinery newly viable was supposedly the kind of invention that could put people out of work temporarily, reduce market-clearing rates, and in long-run equilibrium at an unchanged subsistence rate call for a significantly reduced population. By contrast, therefore, a new invention that displaced machinery in favor of various raw materials as inputs, would supposedly raise the short-run real and increase the demand for labor. So powerful was the grip of what I shall dub the Classical Fallacy that it was being reminded of it in 1819-21 that appears to have enabled Ricardo to recant, in his famous Third Edition chapter on machinery, his previous boner that every viable invention can be expected to raise every factor's return. From today's wisdomor indeed the wisdom of 1900-that previous position of Ricardo was nonsense. There is no Invisible Hand that seeks out machines or new techniques only if they benefit everyone.I

Here is how the 1817 Ricardo comparative advantage trade benefit analysis has to be modified to take account of post-1960 Sraffian benefits from capital-using technologies. By bringing J. S. Mill's demand model up to date in terms of its implicit geometric-mean money-metric utility, specific measurements for real net national product are calculated to partition sources of welfare gains (from output enhancements and taste-preference accommodations) in scenarios of (1) trade between equals, (2) trade between poor and rich nations, and (3) for biased inventions that enable a poor country to take over production of items in which formerly the rich place enjoyed comparative advantage. History of economic doctrine is mined to advance today's frontier of scientific knowledge—a forward-looking function for “Whig history.”

Ricardo is shown to be right that machinery can hurt wages and reduce output. A dramatic robot example reveals Wicksell's error in believing that Pareto optimality calls for no drop in total output from a viable invention. Under Ricardo's axiom that labor supply adjusts to keep wages at the subsistence level, he can correctly deduce on a market-clearing basis a rise in his net product (rent plus interest), while the greater drop in population and total wages result in a reduction in his gross product (rent plus interest plus wages).

Ricardo is shown to be right that machinery can hurt wages and reduce output. A dramatic robot example reveals Wicksell's error in believing that Pareto optimality calls for no drop in total output from a viable invention. Under Ricardo's axiom that labor supply adjusts to keep wages at the subsistence level, he can correctly deduce on a market-clearing basis a rise in his net product (rent plus interest), while the greater drop in population and total wages result in a reduction in his gross product (rent plus interest plus wages).