John Stuart Mill on Laissez-faire

This is John Stuart Mill in his Principles of Political Economy, Book V, Chapter XI, Para 7 [Ashley edition p 950]:

Laissez-faire, in short, should be the general practice: every departure from it, unless required by some great good, is a certain evil.

This is William D. Grampp in his Economic Liberalism: , Volume II: The Classical View, Chapter 3, titled “Liberalism in the Great Century” [New York: Random House 1965]. The chapter begins:

The nineteenth century usually is thought to have been the greatest age of economic liberalism, greater than any other, from its origins in Stoicism down to the present time. Economists think of the century as the long afternoon of the ideology. They believe it then meant laissez-faire and that laissez-faire was the policy of Great Britain, the major economy of the world. In fact, the century was not like that, and historians have tried to tell us so. They have reported the many ways in which the British government intervened in the market. The historians also have said the intervention was inconsistent with liberalism. In this, they are in my opinion, mistaken. (Grampp 1965: 73)

From the introduction to the chapter he continues with his first section on “The Importance of the Nineteenth Century”. He lists six reasons, this is the fourth:

“(4) The first effort to make a comprehensive statement on its principles was in 1848.” (Grampp 1965: 74)

1848 was the date of publication of the first edition of Mill’s Principles. He makes what he means absolutely clear on the following page:

“John Stuart Mill was the first to do this – to enunciate a theory of policy – and he did it in his Principles, which was published in 1848.” (Grampp 1965: 75)

He makes clear its significance in the very first para in which he discusses the notion of laissez-faire.

“1. The idea of economic liberalism, which had been gathering force for centuries, came to their full power in the nineteenth century…. Liberalism had many different meanings to these people. But one generalization can be made. To almost all who believed in it and to some who did not, liberalism did not mean laissez faire – that is, it did not mean a policy of non-intervention by the government and of allowing the major economic decisions to be made on unregulated markets. The rejection of laissez faire was one of the few ideas on which there was nearly complete agreement among the economists and between them and the political leaders.” (Grampp 1965: 74)

In that quote from Mill, the most important word is “unless”, “unless required by some great good”. His Book V is “On the Role of Government”, and in the 185 pages that follow he makes clear just how extensive he believed that role is.

First they clock you on the head, then they revive you and call it a “stimulus”

Economic theory is confused almost to nullity. Part of my Classical Economic Theory and the Modern Economy (available from June) is a detailed discussion how modern economics, particularly the macroeconomic side, has made it almost impossible to talk about economies in a way that makes sense because of the terms we now use. This latest proliferation of the term “stimulus” to refer to the efforts to minimise the harm inflicted on our economies by closing them down is an example that had not even occurred to me. It will now make its way into the final text. Here’s the definition of economic stimulus from the net:

 An economic stimulus is the use of monetary or fiscal policy changes to kick-start growth during a recession. Governments can accomplish this by using tactics such as lowering interest rates, increasing government spending, and quantitative easing, to name a few.

Whatever you might call what is being now done, it is not a “stimulus”. Even economists can no longer distinguish the present attempts to minimise the structural damage caused by government restrictions on the economy with an attempt to “kick start growth”. The plain fact is that they have no idea what they are doing although for a change they are doing the right thing.

But here is how it will have to end in about three months time when the Corona Virus is finally declared under control. They will have to raise interest rates a couple of percentage points to pull all of this money out of the system. It won’t take much of an increase but that will be crucial.

In the meantime they should cut wages among the non-essential members of the public sector by 20% at a minimum. I would do it on a permanent basis, but do it at least temporarily until the emergency is over.

John Stuart Mill at Econ Lib

This is the EconLib (The Economics of Liberty} online biography of John Stuart Mill. The greatest defender of freedom and liberty in history, this is what they come up with. They really have no idea about the economics of Mill or about the economics of freedom for that matter, but it is sadly par for the course in our day and age.

The eldest son of economist James Mill, John Stuart Mill was educated according to the rigorous expectations of his Benthamite father. He was taught Greek at age three and Latin at age eight. By the time he reached young adulthood John Stuart Mill was a formidable intellectual, albeit an emotionally depressed one. After recovering from a nervous breakdown, he departed from his Benthamite teachings to shape his own view of political economy. In Principlesof Political Economy, which became the leading economics textbook for forty years after it was written, Mill elaborated on the ideas of David Ricardo and Adam Smith. He helped develop the ideas of economies of scale, opportunity cost, and comparative advantage in trade.

Mill was a strong believer in freedom, especially of speech and of thought. He defended freedom on two grounds. First, he argued, society’s utility would be maximized if each person was free to make his or her own choices. Second, Mill believed that freedom was required for each person’s development as a whole person. In his famous essay On Liberty, Mill enunciated the principle that “the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.” He wrote that we should be “without impediment from our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong.”

Surprisingly, though, Mill was not a consistent advocate of laissez-faire. His biographer, Alan Ryan, conjectures that Mill did not think of contract and property rights as being part of freedom. Mill favored inheritance taxation, trade protectionism, and regulation of employees’ hours of work. Interestingly, although Mill favored mandatory education, he did not advocate mandatory schooling. Instead, he advocated a voucher system for schools and a state system of exams to ensure that people had reached a minimum level of learning.
Although Mill advocated universal suffrage, he suggested that the better-educated voters be given more votes. He emphatically defended this proposal from the charge that it was intended to let the middle class dominate. He argued that it would protect against class legislation and that anyone who was educated, including poor people, would have more votes.

Mill spent most of his working life with the East India Company. He joined it at age sixteen and worked there for thirty-eight years. He had little effect on policy, but his experience did affect his views on self-government.

 
Let us in particular look at this: “Surprisingly, though, Mill was not a consistent advocate of laissez-faire.” Not only was he not a consistent advocate, he was no advocate of laissez-faire at all. No economist has ever been an advocate of laissez-faire, not Adam Smith, not David Ricardo, not anyone else. If you mean in all cases, leave it to the market, no one has ever advocated such a hands-off approach. Going further, Mill was an advocate of using government agency and regulation in a wide variety of instances. Yet his economics was the most hands-off approach to economic policy of any economist since the middle of the nineteenth century. This was from my own discussion of Mill that appeared on the EconLib website back in 2015: John Stuart Mill explaining what is wrong with Keynesian theory. My book on the economics of Mill will be published this year: Classical Economics and the Modern Economy.

This is overview of the book found on the Elgar website:

Economic theory reached its highest level of analytical power and depth in the middle of the nineteenth century among John Stuart Mill and his contemporaries. This book explains classical economics when it was at its height, followed by an analysis of what took place as a result of the ensuing Marginal and Keynesian Revolutions that have left economists less able to understand how economies operate.

Chapters explore the false mythology that has obscured the arguments of classical economists, clouding to the point of near invisibility the theories they had developed. Steven Kates offers a thorough understanding of the operation of an economy within a classical framework, providing a new perspective for viewing modern economic theory from the outside. This provocative book not only explains the meaning of Say’s Law in an accessible way, but also the origins of the Keynesian revolution and Keynes’s pathway in writing The General Theory. It provides a new look at the classical theory of value at its height that was not based, as so many now wrongly believe, on the labour theory of value.

A crucial read for economic policy-makers seeking to understand the operation of a market economy, this book should also be of keen interest to economists generally as well as scholars in the history of economic thought.

I never worry that anyone will be able to contradict me about Mill since the most certain statement I can make is that no one, but no one, has read Mill in the past fifty year to find out how an economy works, and virtually no one has read him sympathetically – other than myself and a handful of others – in over a century. But you do have to wonder about those who tell you about freedom and liberty who don’t read the author of On Liberty for some insights into how an economy works and his views on the role of government in making an economy work.

 

Mill’s Principles reviewed by Bonar in 1911

In 1911, James Bonar wrote a review on the publication of the Ashley edition of Mill’s Principles of Political Economy which was published in The Journal of Political Economy, titled: The Economics of John Stuart Mill. It perfectly summarises the consensus view of Mill’s economics at the start of the twentieth century, which shows just how far from the centre Mill’s economics had already by then moved.

If John Stuart Mill’s eminence is not supreme, it is great enough to make almost every utterance of his worth considering. His was rarely a hasty judgment; and what he says of his fellow-enthusiasts of the year 1825 might be applied to himself on most occasions: he never left a subject he had taken up until he had (to the best of his ability) untied every knot in it.

Another century later, there is virtually no economist who reads Mill today for instruction. And it’s not just their loss, we all lose because of the inanity of modern theory. It is the residuals from the economics of Mill and his contemporaries that allow our economies to limp along and innovation to continue. It was also interesting to discover how Mill came to write The Principles:

The success of the Logic drew him back into political economy by making the publishers willing (perhaps anxious) to print what they had refused before, namely, the Essays on Some Unsettled Questions in Political Economy, Mill’s part of the work projected in 1831 [he had originally intended to co-author a series of papers on economics which is why it was “Mill’s part”].

As he was setting out to write his Political Economy, he wrote the following to Auguste Comte in 1844:

I know what you think of the present political economy. I have a better opinion of it than you; but, if I wrote something about these things, I should never forget the purely provisional character of all its concrete conclusions and I should devote myself more especially to separating the general laws of production, necessarily common to all industrial societies, from the principles of distribution and exchange, which assume a particular state of society. Such a treatise could have a great provisional utility, especially in England.”‘ It might appear to you essentially anti-scientific; and it would be so as a matter of fact, if I were not taking great pains to establish the purely provisional character of every doctrine (about industrial phenomena) which made abstraction from the general movement of humanity. I think that if this plan is at all adequately executed it would give a scientific education (education positive) to many who are now studying social questions more or less seriously; and in taking as my general model the great and brilliant work of Adam Smith I should find good opportunities for spreading directly one or two principles of the new [positive] philosophy, as Adam Smith found them for spreading most often those of negative metaphysics in his social applications, yet without awakening dark misgivings by waving any flag.

I find this especially enlightening since quite a number of Mill’s views that have been superseded according to Bonar are views that I believe are of premier importance.

There are many details of economic doctrine in respect of which Mill has probably few followers now. Occasionally his positions, instead of being solemnly refuted, are quietly dropped as purely Ricardian. Many of the pages devoted to wages and profits are so treated. His particular form of Malthusianism has gone out of doors into the hands of an energetic sect of reformers. Without adopting the sweepingly adverse verdict of Jevons, we may admit that there is at once too much and too little in Mill’s Political Economy for most of us now. We should not confine wealth to exchange value, or believe that nothing remained to be added to the theory of value. We should not say that without competition there is no economics. We should not say so broadly that industry is limited by capital. We should not make so much of the distinction between productive and unproductive labor or try to prove that a demand for goods can never in any sound sense be a demand for labor. We cannot be induced to rank land, labor, and capital as co-ordinate factors in production, or to adopt Senior’s view that abstinence is rewarded in interest. We should probe further into the cause of interest. We might ratify the general principle of Malthus without making all progress turn on the practical recognition of it. We should be more chary than Mill in the use of the word ” laws.” We should not, all of us, admit that the “laws” of production were purely physical and the “laws” of distribution “of human institution solely.” Mill was probably aware that the abandonment by him in I869 of the wages fund carried consequences reaching into the heart of his arguments on profits and wages reducing them largely to useless dialectic.

But once we have removed Malthusian pessimism on population from the list, the rest of Mill’s judgements stand, even if few [no] modern economists any longer understand or subscribe to Mill’s position.

Much more to read at the link if these things interest you. But there is this one error that should be a reminder that no one can write anyone else’s life without error. This was the dates of Mill’s life stated by Bonar: “(May 20, 18o8, to May 8, 1873)”. Mill was, in fact, born in 1806.

“No permanent additional employment can be created by State expenditure”

A review of the following book was put up on the Societies for the History of Economics online discussion thread:

Robert W. Dimand and Harald Hagemann, editors, The Elgar Companion to John Maynard Keynes. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2019. xxi + 648 pp. $250 (hardcover). ISBN: 978-1-84720-008-2.

Reviewed for EH.Net by Bradley W. Bateman, Randolph College.

To get the flavour of the review, this was its first line:

Rarely does one read a reference work for pleasure. After all, would you take the Encyclopedia Britannica or the New Palgrave to the beach for your holiday? Not likely. And yet, there are reference books that one not only depends on, but enjoys. These might be surveys of the literature such as G.C. Peden’s little gem, Keynes, the Treasury, and British Economic Policy (1988); or they might be traditional multi-volume works like the Dictionary of National Biography. A good reference work can take many forms; but when you find a well-written and authoritative work that can help you in your research, you turn to it regularly and, yes, can even come to enjoy it.

I therefore wrote a note to put my own perspective forward.

I hear all the time that Keynesian economics has been transcended, that it is a thing of the past, but the evidence, both from the way our textbooks are written and in the way policy is conducted across the world, is that the very core of macro theory and policy remains Y=C+I+G. I am in no doubt that this collection is indeed a valuable collection in that it consolidates a great deal of writing on Keynesian economics and its history into a single volume. Yet the issue for me remains, that economists continue to trundle down this Keynesian path without the slightest evidence that it accurately explains how economies work, or that there has ever been a single instance where a Keynesian fiscal expansion has actually succeeded in bringing an economy out of recession and restoring full employment. You might have hoped that the failure of every stimulus in the world to succeed following the GFC might have created some kind of learning experience, but so far there is little evidence that economists are even beginning to rethink these macro models. Since the bibliography includes G.C. Peden, I will add in my favourite quotation from his writings, and leave it at that. And what this quote shows is that it’s not as if pubic spending didn’t have a constituency before Keynes, and yet, when it was tried, it turns out that the “Treasury View” was absolutely correct, as it has been every time a “fiscal stimulus” has been tried. Winston Churchill was the British Chancellor of the Exchequer and this is from his Budget Speech in May 1929, from well before the stock market crash in October.

“Churchill pointed to recent government expenditure on public works such as housing, roads, telephones, electricity supply, and agricultural development, and concluded that, although expenditure for these purposes had been justified:

‘For the purposes of curing unemployment the results have certainly been disappointing. They are, in fact, so meagre as to lend considerable colour to the orthodox Treasury doctrine which has been steadfastly held that, whatever might be the political or social advantages, very little additional employment and no permanent additional employment can in fact and as a general rule be created by State borrowing and State expenditure.’” (Peden 1996: 69-70)

I just wonder whether this volume has an entry on Critics of Keynesian Economics. I doubt that it does, but in any case it would undoubtedly and unfortunately have to be a very short entry.

So far no rejoinder to my response, but will let you know if there ever is.

Is it really that hard to understand that unproductive public spending lowers productivity?

Is there anyone anywhere who actually believes that the present recovery in the US has anything to do with Obama? Actually there are lots of people just as ignorant as that, amongst whom is Obama himself. I get the same level of irritation when I read how economic “managers” here in Oz wonder why productivity growth is so pathetic and real wages are falling even as they see before their eyes the construction of streetcars in Sydney, trains in Melbourne and the diversion of tens of billions of dollars into preventing a non-heating planet from heating. Anyway, this is Trump v Obama on why the American economy has been rising since Obama left the presidency.

President Trump fired back Monday after former President Barack Obama, in a subtle swipe at the commander in chief, claimed credit for the economic gains in both their terms.

Obama tweeted Monday morning to note the anniversary of his signing the 2009 economic stimulus package.

“Eleven years ago today, near the bottom of the worst recession in generations, I signed the Recovery Act, paving the way for more than a decade of economic growth and the longest streak of job creation in American history,” Obama tweeted, alongside a photo of his signature on the bill.

But, the Trump campaign, in a statement to Fox News, countered that the economy was recovering only because of the actions Trump took to undo his predecessor’s policies.

“President Trump reversed every single failed Obama-era economic policy, and with it, reversed the floundering Obama/Biden economy,” Trump campaign national press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said. “Obama and Biden orchestrated the worst economic recovery in modern history.”

Actually, everyone else did more or less the same as Obama, Australia included, with more or less the same results. Modern macro is about as disastrous as a policy can be, although we may yet see Modern Monetary Theory given a try by one of the socialists now running for President as a Democrat.

Clueless Keynesian RBA boss leaves ministers frustrated

From the Oz: RBA boss Philip Lowe leaves ministers frustrated.

The Morrison government is ­increasingly frustrated with ­Reserve Bank governor Philip Lowe’s calls for it to spend more to lift the ­nation’s flagging productivity, after a confidential cabinet briefing from the RBA boss on Monday left ministers exasperated by an absence of detailed policy ideas.

Dr Lowe in a speech on ­Wednesday again exhorted the ­Coalition to do more to foster business spending as he highlighted a “troubling decline in productivity growth”, despite “fantastic” economic fundamentals. “While the reasons for this are complex, it is hard to escape the conclusion that higher levels of investment spending would promote productivity growth and our collective living standards,” he said.

Look Phil, have you not been paying attention to the last lost decade of public sector spending and how it’s left the economy adrift, and not just ours?

Hop on one of those streetcars down George Street to see just how wildly wasteful public spending is. Come along to Melbourne and look at the new tunnel we’re building.

Why don’t we build some more windmills? Solar panels?

Maddening to see how shallow public sector economists are. They will be the ruin of us.

Productivity growth and classical economics

Trade-off

I wasn’t going to bother with the story because its title was so ridiculius – Britain’s Productivity Decline Is the Worst in 250 Years – as if you could measure productivity going back even sixty years. But what they show in the chart is true enough, and about which I have been writing quite a bit. The Keynesian “stimulus” has been a disaster everywhere it has been tried, with the example here the UK. To compound their idiocies, this is what they wrote:

Productivity was almost 20% below its pre-2008 path in 2018 — the worst slowdown since 1760-1800, as the Industrial Revolution took hold. The present-day malaise may have been caused by the end of the information and communications technology boom, the financial crisis, and Brexit.

And the authors are, of course, part of the mainstream and at its very heights:

It’s a “shockingly bad” performance, said Nicholas Crafts, who co-authored the paper with Terence Mills, researchers at the University of Sussex and Loughborough University. The findings will published by the National Institute Economic Review on Feb. 6.

Productivity is here measured as output per hour worked. If the government diverts production from the private sector to its own public agenda, you inevitably get a vastly diminished level of value-adding production, even though employment continues to increase because the real wage adjusts. Why people cannot see this is amazing to me, but here is yet more evidence of just how out of it economists now are. That the period in question is the period following the GFC ought to have been a clue, but Keynesians – i.e. modern macroeconomists – are notoriously clueless.

Let me again mention the cover description for my next book:

‘Classical Economic Theory and the Modern Economy’

Steven Kates

Economic theory reached its highest level of analytical power and depth in the middle of the nineteenth century among John Stuart Mill and his contemporaries. This book explains classical economics when it was at its height, followed by an analysis of what took place as a result of the ensuing Marginal and Keynesian Revolutions that have left economists less able to understand how economies operate.

Chapters explore the false mythology that has obscured the arguments of classical economists, clouding to the point of near invisibility the theories they had developed. Kates offers a thorough understanding of the operation of an economy within a classical framework, providing a new perspective for viewing modern economic theory from the outside. This provocative book not only explains the meaning of Say’s Law in an accessible way, but also the origins of the Keynesian revolution and Keynes’s pathway in writing The General Theory. It provides a new look at the classical theory of value at its height that was not based, as so many now wrongly believe, on the labour theory of value.

A crucial read for economic policy-makers seeking to understand the operation of a market economy, this book should also be of keen interest to economists generally as well as scholars in the history of economic thought.

My book is premised on the belief that a modern economist is incapable of understanding what’s wrong with modern economic policy. This paper proves it all once again.

Cover text comments revised

I am very grateful for the comments on my previous post, ‘Classical Economic Theory and the Modern Economy’ cover text comments, thoughts and suggestions sought with special thanks to Gerry on how to begin the text, which was also the point raised by Tim Neilson. However this is the length they are looking for. This is now my second draft.

‘Classical Economic Theory and the Modern Economy’

If you are interested in how economic theory became the wasteland it has become, this is the book you must read.

It starts with two premises: First, that economic theory reached its deepest level of understanding in the writings of John Stuart Mill and the classical economists of his time, and then, secondly, the author of this book has understood Mill and has accurately explained what the classical school of the late nineteenth century wrote. From these premises, this then follows.

To have any hope of understanding how an economy works, and how modern economic theory became the dead end it has become, this is where you must begin.

The classical economists, and John Stuart Mill in particular, lived through the Industrial Revolution, saw its astonishing economic transformation before their eyes, and explained, so others could understand for themselves, how their prosperity had been created through the emergence of the market economy.

Classical economics was entirely a supply-side theory.

Mill, the greatest utilitarian philosopher of his age, refused to use utility as anything other than a minor element in his theory of value. Mill explicitly and emphatically denied any role for aggregate demand in the creation of employment. In reaching these conclusions, there was no disagreement among the entire mainstream economics community of his time.

First through the Marginal Revolution of the 1870s, and then through the Keynesian Revolution of the 1930s, the entire edifice of classical theory has been obliterated and made virtually incomprehensible to anyone educated in modern economics. From a classical perspective, modern theory is Mercantilist trash.

This book explains why that is and how to understand the classics as they were meant to be understood.

From the comments, I can see that this business about utility among the classical economists is extraordinarily difficult to accept. Of course no one will produce anything that they do not believe they can sell, and no one will buy things that do not satisfy some need or desire.

Perhaps this will provide a clearer understanding which is taken from the text of the book. The heading in bold is my assertion, the quote that follows is by D.P. O’Brien from his 1975 Classical Economics Revisited which was such a tour de force that a second expanded edition was published thirty years later, in 2005. He says throughout his book many of the things I say myself, with only this difference, if it is a difference, that I believe the classics were right about what they wrote where he is only reporting.

The Classical Theory of Value was Not Based on Utility Although Mill was Himself a Utilitarian
“Mill advances a ‘cost of production’ theory of value…. He was not a subjective value theorist…. He treated utility as merely a condition of value.” (p.96)

Both Marginal Utility and Aggregate Demand are demand-side theories that completely divorce an economist from thinking in relation to supply. There is much more to it, but there are no easy points to score against Mill over his cost of production approach to value. He has 17 elements in his overview of the theory of value with this the second:

II. The temporary or Market Value of a thing, depends on the demand and supply; rising as the demand rises, and falling as the supply rises. The demand, however, varies with the value, being generally greater when the thing is cheap than when it is dear; and the value always adjusts itself in such a manner, that the demand is equal to the supply.

This is pretty well all that is taught about supply and demand today and I doubt most economists know much more than that, although we now have diagrams and pages of terminology to explain it all (e.g. “price elasticity of demand” or the distinction between “demand” and “quantity demanded”).

Mill’s first proposition, by the way, is that value is entirely a relative concept. The classics were not trying to explain just the temporary price of the moment, but how the relative price structure across an economy is determined. That is a much much more difficult question and I doubt most economists today have much of a handle on it assuming it is even brought to their attention. It is also a much more important issue than mere price determination of a single product in isolation from the rest of the economy.

For those interested in a classical approach to economic theory, there is the third edition of my Free Market Economics. I think of it as Mill’s Principles for the twenty-first century. It is, unfortunately, absolutely unique.

Comments, thoughts and suggestions welcome

You may have noticed my lack of regard for modern economic theory which the following might help you understand more clearly. This is the draft of the cover text for the book I have just completed and sent off to the publisher. Comments, thoughts and suggestions would be welcome. My disdain for Keynesian economics I have discussed on many occasions. My attitude to “marginal” analysis I mention far less often which is why certain passages below are highlighted in bold.

‘Classical Economic Theory and the Modern Economy’

The book starts with two premises: First, that economic theory reached its deepest level of understanding in the writings of John Stuart Mill and the classical economists of his time, and then, secondly, the author of this book has understood Mill and has accurately explained what the classical school of the late nineteenth century wrote. From these premises, this then follows.

If you are to have any hope of understanding how an economy works, and how modern economic theory became the dead end it has become, you will need to read this book.

The classical economists, and John Stuart Mill in particular, lived through the Industrial Revolution, saw its astonishing economic transformation before their eyes, and explained, so others could understand for themselves, how their prosperity had been created through the emergence of the market economy.

Mill, the greatest utilitarian philosopher of his age, refused to use utility as part of his theory of value. Mill explicitly and emphatically denied any role for aggregate demand in the creation of employment. In reaching these conclusions, there was no disagreement among the entire mainstream economics community of his time.

First through the Marginal Revolution of the 1870s, and then through the Keynesian Revolution of the 1930s, the entire edifice of classical theory has been obliterated. From a classical perspective, modern economic theory is Mercantilist trash nonsense. If you are interested in how economic theory became the wasteland it has become, and wish to understand the classical theory no one any longer has the slightest clue about, this is the book you must read.

If you are interested in understanding all this more completely, you will have to read the entire book when it is finally published sometime this year.