The archive.

Ragnar Nurkse's path ran from Estonia through Edinburgh and Vienna to the League of Nations, Columbia, and an early death in 1959, and Haberler's introduction to his collected writings reads that path as a single sustained inquiry into international economic order. The apparently scattered concerns — capital movements, monetary equilibrium, balance-of-payments adjustment, balanced growth — cohere, he argues, because Nurkse joined rigorous theory to careful statistics without letting either dominate. Haberler traces the Viennese early work, shaped by Hayek and Mises, on capital flows arising when stages in the structure of production sit in different countries, through the League studies that produced the classic International Currency Experience, to the development essays. Crucially, he insists Nurkse drew no protectionist or central-planning moral from balanced growth.

There is no sense in committing suicide in order to avoid death.

With De Gaulle challenging the dollar, Rueff calling for a return to gold at double its price, and sterling under siege in 1964, Haberler enters the Bretton Woods debate to attack two opposite errors: treating gold as monetary discipline and treating reserve creation as a substitute for adjustment. Money, he insists, is machinery for coordinating exchange, not a sacred parity; international arrangements earn their keep by preserving trade, convertibility, and price stability. The heart of the argument shifts the quarrel from liquidity to adjustment, showing how downward wage rigidity gives fixed exchange rates an inflationary bias and how the adjustable peg invites one-way speculation. His prescription is limited exchange-rate flexibility and conditional, ad hoc cooperation rather than automatic reserve creation.

As the 1963 BIS report remarked, liquidity must not only be sufficient but must also be capable of running out, because the ultimate sanction, a liquidity crisis, may be needed to bring governments to their senses.

Setting aside Marx the revolutionary, sociologist, and prophet, this retrospective judges only Marx the economist — and finds the system wanting on every count that matters. Haberler locates the fatal defect in the value theory itself: once Volume III introduces equalized profit rates and prices of production, commodities no longer exchange at the labour values Volume I requires, so Böhm-Bawerk's old charge of internal contradiction still stands, now reinforced by Samuelson's analysis of the transformation problem. From logical failure he turns to practical sterility, arguing that even socialist planners improved only by smuggling back interest, scarcity pricing, and comparative cost. The prophecies fare no better: working-class immiseration, the imperialism thesis, and predictions of ever-deepening crises all founder against the economic record.

The assertion that in the capitalist countries real wages have a secular tendency to decline flies in the face of what everyone knows of economic history.

Record American deficits piled up through the late 1960s, yet confidence in the dollar held—a puzzle Haberler and Willett resolve by arguing that the world had drifted onto a de facto dollar standard in which the currency was inconvertible into gold for large official sums, and that the very gap between the gold stock and dollar liabilities made mass conversion unthinkable. From this they draw the case for what they call benign neglect: because the United States cannot unilaterally devalue a currency everyone else pegs to, it should pursue domestic stability and curb inflation while leaving adjustment to surplus countries, which may accumulate dollars, appreciate, expand, or lower trade barriers. Written just before the August 1971 suspension of convertibility, the essay presses for modest exchange-rate flexibility—crawling pegs, wider bands, floating—over the distortions of capital and trade controls.

whenever a serious dilemma or conflict between the requirements of external and internal equilibrium arises, domestic policy objectives should take precedence over balance-of-payments considerations

When the Bretton Woods system broke down in 1973, the pressing question was not which technical rule to adopt but why fixed parities had failed at all. Haberler's diagnosis is unsparing: under modern democratic conditions any fixed-rate regime, a resurrected gold standard included, carries an inflationary bias, because governments will not accept the deflation that adjustment requires. Agreeing with Otmar Emminger against gold-standard nostalgics, he argues that correction must then run through inflation in surplus countries, exchange controls, or repeated parity changes, and that the adjustable peg only invites one-way speculation. His remedy is managed floating, sharply distinguished from the 'dirty' floating of split markets and multiple rates. Rereading the competitive devaluations of the 1930s as products of rigidity rather than flexibility, he urges the IMF to police clean floating instead of resurrecting the par-value system.

Floating is here to stay even if a misguided attempt is made to return to “stable but adjustable” parities.

Nairobi settled nothing, and for Haberler that was no calamity. The Committee of Twenty still chased a negotiated return to stable-but-adjustable par values, yet the working system was already one of floating currencies, and world trade had gone on growing beneath the improvisation. His argument hinges on a distinction officials blurred: asset convertibility, turning official balances into gold or SDRs, matters far less to commerce than ordinary market convertibility among currencies, which floating preserved. Restoring dollar convertibility, he insists, would not supply the discipline its advocates want, since the real obstacle is that governments refuse deflation for the sake of external balance. Against Giscard d'Estaing's charge that floating neither halts inflation nor yields true market rates, Haberler answers that flexible rates are a necessary shield for any country determined to stay out of the world's inflation.

If any country wishes to stay out of the world inflation, floating is a necessary but not sufficient condition.

Against the postwar faith in fiscal fine-tuning, Haberler binds together three things usually treated separately: economic growth, monetary stability, and personal freedom. Growth matters, he argues, because it widens the practical range of human choice, but the institutions that generate it demand discipline rather than activist management. Severe depressions, he judges, have become largely avoidable, so the live danger is now creeping inflation, and here his reassessment of the Phillips curve does the analytical work. Phillips's own mechanism, he notes, was demand-pull, not cost-push; any apparent trade-off between inflation and unemployment holds only while rising prices go unanticipated, and dissolves once expectations catch up. Set within a classical-liberal frame that reaches from the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth to wage-push unionism, the book narrows what stabilization policy can honestly promise: no durable bargain between jobs and inflation exists.

It is probably no exaggeration to say that severe depressions are a thing of the past.

Ninety days of frozen wages and prices gave Nixon's New Economic Policy of August 1971 its drama, but Haberler asks the harder question of what happens once the freeze is lifted. A freeze, he warns, suspends visible price changes without touching demand, wage bargaining, or credibility; hold it too long and it breeds evasion, bureaucracy, and corruption. The essay's hinge is a distinction between two incomes policies: guideposts and controls that substitute official judgment for the market, and reforms that restore competition by curbing union privileges, revising Davis-Bacon and minimum-wage rules, ending strike subsidies, and opening the door to imports. Sustained inflation, he holds, is always monetary, yet monopoly unions can still force authorities to choose between validating wage push and accepting unemployment. Business monopoly, by contrast, produces mostly one-shot effects and matters far less to a continuing spiral.

Industrial monopolies or oligopolies are not much of a problem as far as inflation is concerned.

Writing after the 1973 oil embargo and OPEC's cartel price rise had transformed the monetary scene, Haberler sets out to calm the panic rather than amplify it. The oil shock, he grants, imposes a real transfer of purchasing power from the industrial world to the producers, but a large transfer is not an insoluble monetary crisis. Treated as a single bloc, the importing countries could bear it while output still expanded; the genuine difficulty is distributional, since exporters' spending and investment will not match each nation's oil bill, and exchange rates must apportion the adjustment. Because no authority can compute the correct new parities, floating is the least bad response to uncertainty. France's decision to let the franc float confirms the lesson, and he cautions Washington to welcome dollar appreciation rather than retaliate with tariffs or quotas.

If they keep their money in liquid form (fail to spend it), it is up to monetary management in the importing countries to neutralize a possible deflationary effect.

Did OPEC's quadrupling of crude prices really cause the stagflation of the mid-1970s? Haberler's answer, developed as the lead paper of this symposium, is a firm no: the oil shock was costly but not the master cause. Dearer oil imposes a terms-of-trade loss that a flexible economy would absorb through a once-for-all fall in real income; only downward-rigid money wages convert it into unemployment or inflation. The shock, he argues, struck an economy already destabilized by an unsustainable boom. On the international side he deflates fears of the 'petrodollar,' since OPEC surpluses must return as purchases or investment and the Euro-dollar market had already recycled them. Rejecting official schemes that quarantine oil deficits from the rest, he insists each country confront its overall balance of payments through floating, IMF borrowing, or domestic monetary and fiscal measures.

The oil price rise was not a major factor in bringing on inflation and recession.

Stagflation, rapid inflation coexisting with substantial unemployment over a considerable period, was not supposed to happen, and the 1974-75 recession, the first worldwide postwar slump, made the anomaly impossible to ignore. Haberler treats it not as a natural feature of competitive markets but as the symptom of institutional obstruction: downward wage rigidity, union bargaining, indexation, farm supports, and regulation prevent relative prices from adjusting. Special factors like the oil and food shocks, he calculates, explain perhaps a fourth of the two-digit inflation; the rest is real-wage resistance by organized groups. His prescription is structural reform to enlarge competition, dismantling marketing orders, Davis-Bacon rules, the Buy American Act, and minimum-wage laws that price out the young, rather than incomes policy or election-year stimulus, which would only reignite inflation and invite the wage-price controls that lead toward rationing and planning.

The policy dilemma of stagflation is this: If macroeconomic monetary and fiscal policies try to counteract inflation, they increase unemployment; if they try to reduce unemployment they intensify inflation.

Pigou, Keynes, and Jöhr had built the business cycle partly on waves of optimism and pessimism, and Haberler begins there to stage a wider reckoning with rational expectations at the moment it was reshaping macroeconomics. He grants the new school its central insight, that anticipated inflation erodes any stimulus and no permanent Phillips-curve trade-off exists, but rejects its strong claim that systematic monetary and fiscal policy touches only nominal variables. That neutrality, he argues, assumes homogeneous, model-consistent agents and instantly clearing markets, and so neglects downward money-wage rigidity, unions, and contracts. Invoking Arrow against shared-model assumptions and Barro on the 1973-74 oil shock, he defends limited monetary accommodation when nominal wages cannot fall. His preferred synthesis is Fellner's credibility hypothesis: disinflation works only when wage- and price-setters believe the authorities will persist.

But money illusion is a fairly hardy plant.