Richard Cantillon (French: [kɑ̃tijɔ̃]; 1680s – May 1734) was an Irish-French economist and author of Essai sur la Nature du Commerce en Général (Essay on the Nature of Trade in General), a book considered by William Stanley Jevons to be the “cradle of political economy“.^[4] Although little information exists on Cantillon’s life, it is known that he became a successful banker and merchant at an early age. His success was largely derived from the political and business connections he made through his family and through an early employer, James Brydges. During the late 1710s and early 1720s, Cantillon speculated in, and later helped fund, John Law‘s Mississippi Company, from which he acquired great wealth. However, his success came at a cost to his debtors, who pursued him with lawsuits, criminal charges, and even murder plots until his death in 1734.

Essai remains Cantillon’s only surviving contribution to economics. It was written around 1730 and circulated widely in manuscript form, but was not published until 1755. His work was translated into Spanish by Gaspar Melchor de Jovellanos, probably in the late 1770s, and considered essential reading for political economy. Despite having much influence on the early development of the physiocrat and classical schools of thought, Essai was largely forgotten until its rediscovery by Jevons in the late 19th century.^[5] Cantillon was influenced by his experiences as a banker, and especially by the speculative bubble of John Law’s Mississippi Company. He was also heavily influenced by prior economists, especially William Petty.

Essai is considered the first complete treatise on economics, with numerous contributions to the science. These contributions include: his cause and effect methodology, monetary theories, his conception of the entrepreneur as a risk-bearer, and the development of spatial economics. Cantillon’s Essai had significant influence on the early development of political economy, including the works of Adam Smith, Anne Turgot, Jean-Baptiste Say, Frédéric Bastiat and François Quesnay.^[6]

Biography

While details regarding Richard Cantillon’s life are scarce,^[7] it is thought that he was born sometime during the 1680s in County Kerry, Ireland.^[1]^[6] He was son to land-owner Richard Cantillon of Ballyheigue.^[8] Sometime in the middle of the first decade of the 18th century Cantillon moved to France, where he attained French citizenship.^[9] By 1711, Cantillon found himself in the employment of British Paymaster General James Brydges, in Spain, where he organised payments to British prisoners of war during the War of Spanish Succession.^[10] Cantillon remained in Spain until 1714, cultivating a number of business and political connections, before returning to Paris.^[11] Cantillon then became involved in the banking industry working for a cousin, who at that time was lead-correspondent of the Parisian branch of a family bank.^[12] Two years later, thanks in large part to financial backing by James Brydges, Cantillon bought his cousin out and attained ownership of the bank.^[13] Given the financial and political connections Cantillon was able to attain both through his family^[14] and through James Brydges, Cantillon proved a fairly successful banker, specialising in money transfers between Paris and London.^[15]

At this time, Cantillon became involved with British mercantilist John Law through the Mississippi Company.^[16] Based on the monetary theory proposed by William Potter in his 1650 tract The Key of Wealth,^[17] John Law posited that increases in the money supply would lead to the employment of unused land and labour, leading to higher productivity.^[18] In 1716, the French government granted him both permission to found the Banque Générale and virtual monopoly over the right to develop French territories in North America, named the Mississippi Company. In return, Law promised the French government to finance its debt at low rates of interest.^[19] Law began a financial speculative bubble by selling shares of the Mississippi Company, using the Banque Générale’s virtual monopoly on the issue of bank notes to finance his investors.^[20]

Richard Cantillon amassed a great fortune from his speculation, buying Mississippi Company shares early and selling them at inflated prices.^[21] Cantillon’s financial success and growing influence caused friction in his relationship with John Law, and sometime thereafter Law threatened to imprison Cantillon if the latter did not leave France within twenty-four hours.^[22] Cantillon replied: “I shall not go away; but I will make your system succeed.”^[22] To that end, in 1718 Law, Cantillon, and wealthy speculator Joseph Gage formed a private company centred on financing further speculation in North American real estate.^[23]

In 1719, Cantillon left Paris for Amsterdam, returning briefly in early 1720. Lending in Paris, Cantillon had outlying debt repaid to him in London and Amsterdam.^[24] With the collapse of the “Mississippi bubble”, Cantillon was able to collect on debt accruing high rates of interest.^[25] Most of his debtors had suffered financial damage in the bubble collapse and blamed Cantillon—until his death, Cantillon was involved in countless lawsuits filed by his debtors, leading to a number of murder plots and criminal accusations.^[26]

On 16 February 1722, Cantillon married Mary Mahony, daughter of Count Daniel O’Mahony [fr]—a wealthy merchant and former Irish general—spending much of the remainder of the 1720s travelling throughout Europe with his wife.^[27] Cantillon and Mary had two children, a son who died at an early age and a daughter, Henrietta,^[28] wife successively of the 3rd Earl of Stafford and the 1st Earl of Farnham. Although he frequently returned to Paris between 1729 and 1733, his permanent residence was in London.^[29] In May 1734, his residence in London was burned to the ground, and it is generally assumed that Cantillon died in the fire.^[2] While the fire’s causes are unclear, the most widely accepted theory is that Cantillon was murdered.^[30] One of Cantillon’s biographers, Antoine Murphy, has advanced the alternative theory that Cantillon staged his own death to escape the harassment of his debtors, appearing in Suriname under the name Chevalier de Louvigny.^[31]

Contributions to economics

Although there is evidence that Richard Cantillon wrote a wide variety of manuscripts, only his Essai Sur La Nature Du Commerce En Général (abbreviated Essai) survives.^[6]^[32] Written in 1730,^[33] it was published in French in 1755,^[34] and was translated into English by Henry Higgs in 1932.^[35] Evidence suggests that Essai had tremendous influence on the early development of economic science. However, Cantillon’s treatise was largely neglected during the 19th century.^[5] In the late 19th century and it was “rediscovered” by William Stanley Jevons, who considered it the “cradle of political economy”.^[4] Since then, Cantillon’s Essai has received growing attention. Essai is considered the first complete treatise on economic theory,^[36] and Cantillon has been called the “father of enterprise economics”.^[6]^[37]

William Petty is considered to be one of Richard Cantillon’s greatest influences.^[38]

One of the greatest influences on Cantillon’s writing was English economist William Petty and his 1662 tract Treatise on Taxes.^[39] Although Petty provided much of the groundwork for Cantillon’s Essai,^[38] Anthony Brewer argues that Petty’s influence has been overstated.^[40] Apart from Petty, other possible influences on Cantillon include John Locke,^[41] Cicero, Livy, Pliny the Elder, Pliny the Younger, Charles Davenant, Edmond Halley, Isaac Newton, Sébastien Le Prestre de Vauban, and Jean Boisard.^[3] Cantillon’s involvement in John Law’s speculative bubble proved invaluable and likely heavily influenced his insight on the relationship between increases in the supply of money, price, and production.^[42]

Methodology

Cantillon’s Essai is written using a distinctive causal methodology, separating Cantillon from his mercantilist predecessors.^[6]^[43] Essai is peppered with the word “natural”, which in the case of Cantillon’s treatise is meant to imply a cause and effect relationship between economic actions and phenomena.^[44] Economist Murray Rothbard credits Cantillon with being one of the first theorists to isolate economic phenomena with simple models, where otherwise uncontrollable variables can be fixed.^[45] Cantillon made frequent use of the concept of ceteris paribus throughout Essai in an attempt to neutralise independent variables.^[46] Furthermore, he is credited with employing a methodology similar to Carl Menger‘s methodological individualism,^[47] by deducing complex phenomena from simple observations.^[48]

A cause and effect methodology led to a relatively value-free approach to economic science, in which Cantillon was uninterested in the merit of any particular economic action or phenomenon, focusing rather on the explanation of relationships.^[49] This led Cantillon to separate economic science from politics and ethics to a greater degree than previous mercantilist writers.^[45] This has led to disputes on whether Cantillon can justly be considered a mercantilist or one of the first anti-mercantilists,^[50] given that Cantillon often cited government-manipulated trade surpluses and specie accumulation as positive economic stimuli.^[51] Others argue that in instances where Cantillon is thought to have supported certain mercantilist policies, he actually provided a more neutral analysis by explicitly stating possible limitations of mercantilist policies.^[52]

Monetary theory

Differences between prior mercantilists and Cantillon arise early in Essai, regarding the origins of wealth and price formation on the market.^[53] Cantillon distinguishes between wealth and money, considering wealth in itself “nothing but the food, conveniences, and pleasures of life.”^[54] While Cantillon advocated an “intrinsic” theory of value, based on the input of land and labour (cost of production),^[55] he is considered to have touched upon a subjective theory of value.^[56] Cantillon held that market prices are not immediately decided by intrinsic value, but are derived from supply and demand.^[57] He considered market prices to be derived by comparing supply, the quantity of a particular good in a particular market, to demand, the quantity of money brought to be exchanged.^[58] Believing market prices to tend towards the intrinsic value of a good, Cantillon may have also originated the uniformity-of-profit principle—changes in the market price of a good may lead to changes in supply, reflecting a rise or fall in profit.^[59]

Rendition of Cantillon’s primitive circular flow model^[60]

In Essai, Cantillon provided an advanced version of John Locke’s quantity theory of money, focusing on relative inflation and the velocity of money.^[61] Cantillon suggested that inflation occurs gradually and that the new supply of money has a localised effect on inflation, effectively originating the concept of non-neutral money.^[62] Furthermore, he posited that the original recipients of new money enjoy higher standards of living at the expense of later recipients.^[63] The concept of relative inflation, or a disproportionate rise in prices among different goods in an economy, is now known as the Cantillon Effect.^[64] Cantillon also considered changes in the velocity of money (quantity of exchanges made within a specific amount of time) influential on prices, although not to the same degree as changes in the quantity of money.^[65] While he believed that the money supply consisted only of specie, he conceded that increases in money substitutes—or bank notes—could affect prices by effectively increasing the velocity of circulating of deposited specie.^[66] Apart from distinguishing money from money substitute, he also distinguished between bank notes offered as receipts for specie deposits and bank notes circulating beyond the quantity of specie—or fiduciary media—suggesting that the volume of fiduciary media is strictly limited by people’s confidence in its redeemability.^[67] He considered fiduciary media a useful tool to abate the downward pressure that hoarding of specie has on the velocity of money.^[68]

Addressing the mercantilist belief that monetary intervention could cause a perpetually favourable balance of trade, Cantillon developed a specie-flow mechanism foreshadowing future international monetary equilibrium theories.^[69] He suggested that in countries with a high quantity of money in circulation, prices will increase and therefore become less competitive in relation to countries where there is a relative scarcity of money.^[70] Thus, Cantillon also held that increases in the supply of money, regardless of the source, cause increases in the price level and therefore reduce the competitiveness of a particular nation’s industry in relation to a nation with lower prices.^[71] However, Cantillon did not believe that international markets tended toward equilibrium, and instead suggested that government hoard specie to avoid rising prices and falling competitiveness.^[69] Furthermore, he suggested that a favourable balance of trade can be maintained by offering a better product and retaining qualitative competitiveness.^[72] Cantillon’s preference towards a favourable balance of trade possibly stemmed from the mercantilist belief in exchange being a zero-sum game, in which one party gains at the expense of another.^[73]

A relatively advanced theory of interest is also presented.^[74] Cantillon believed that interest originates from the need of borrowers for capital and from the fear of loss of the lenders, meaning that borrowers have to recompense lenders for the risk of the possible insolvency of the debtor.^[75] In turn, interest is paid out of earned profits originating from the return on invested capital.^[76] While previously it was believed that the rate of interest varied inversely to the quantity of money, Cantillon posited that the rate of interest was determined by the supply and demand on the loanable funds market^[77]—an insight usually attributed to Scottish philosopher David Hume.^[78] As such, while saved money impacts the rate of interest, new money that is instead used for consumption does not; Cantillon’s theory of interest is therefore similar to John Maynard Keynes‘s liquidity preference theory.^[79]

Other contributions[edit]

Traditionally, it is Jean-Baptiste Say who is credited for coining the word and advancing the concept of the entrepreneur, but in fact it was Cantillon who first introduced the term in Essai.^[6]^[80] Cantillon divided society into two principal classes—fixed income wage-earners and non-fixed income earners.^[81] Entrepreneurs, according to Cantillon, are non-fixed income earners who pay known costs of production but earn uncertain incomes,^[82] due to the speculative nature of pandering to an unknown demand for their product.^[83] Cantillon, while providing the foundations, did not develop a dedicated theory of uncertainty—the topic was not revisited until the 20th century, by Ludwig von Mises, Frank Knight, and John Maynard Keynes, among others.^[84] Furthermore, unlike later theories of entrepreneurship which saw the entrepreneur as a disruptive force, Cantillon anticipated the belief that the entrepreneur brought equilibrium to a market by correctly predicting consumer preferences.^[85]

Spatial economics deal with distance and area, and how these may affect a market through transportation costs and geographical limitations. The development of spatial economics is usually ascribed to German economist Johann Heinrich von Thünen; however, Cantillon addressed spatial economics nearly a century earlier.^[86] Cantillon integrated his advancements in spatial economic theory into his microeconomic analysis of the market, describing how transportation costs influence the location of factories, markets and population centres—that is, individuals strive to lower transportation costs.^[87] Conclusions on spatial economics were derived from three premises: cost of raw materials of equal quality will always be higher near the capital city, due to transportation costs; transportation costs vary on transportation type (for example, water transportation was considered cheaper than land-based transportation); and larger goods that are more difficult to transport will always be cheaper closer to their area of production.^[88] For example, Cantillon believed markets were designed as they were to decrease costs to both merchants and villagers in terms of time and transportation.^[89] Similarly, Cantillon posited that the locations of cities were the result in large part of the wealth of inhabiting property owners and their ability to afford transportation costs—wealthier property owners tended to live farther from their property, because they could afford the transportation costs.^[90] In Essai, spatial economic theory was used to derive why markets occupied the geographical area they did and why costs varied across different markets.^[91]

Cover of the Ludwig von Mises Institute’s edition of Cantillon’s Essai

Apart from originating theories on the entrepreneur and spatial economics, Cantillon also provided a dedicated theory on population growth. Unlike William Petty, who believed there always existed a considerable amount of unused land and economic opportunity to support economic growth, Cantillon theorised that population grows only as long as there are economic opportunities present.^[92] Specifically, Cantillon cited three determining variables for population size: natural resources, technology, and culture.^[93] Therefore, populations grow only as far as the three aforementioned variables allowed.^[94] Furthermore, Cantillon’s population theory was more modern than that of Malthus in the sense that Cantillon recognised a much broader category of factors which affect population growth, including the tendency for population growth to fall to zero as a society becomes more industrialised.^[95]

Influence

While Essai was not published until 1755 as a result of heavy censorship in France, it did widely circulate in the form of an unpublished manuscript between its completion and its publication.^[96] It notably influenced many direct forerunners of the classical school of thought, including Turgot and other physiocrats.^[97] Cantillon was a major influence on physiocrat François Quesnay, who may have learned of Cantillon’s work through Marquis of Mirabeau.^[98] While it is evident that Essai influenced Quesnay, to what degree remains controversial. There is evidence that Quesnay did not fully understand, or was not completely aware of, Cantillon’s theories.^[99] Many of Quesnay’s economic beliefs were elucidated previously in Essai,^[100] but Quesnay did reject a number of Cantillon’s premises, including the scarcity of land and Cantillon’s population theory.^[101] Also, Quesnay recognised the scarcity of capital and capital accumulation as a prerequisite for investment.^[99] Nevertheless, Cantillon was considered the “father of physiocracy” by Henry Higgs, due to his influence on Quesnay.^[102] It is also possible that Cantillon influenced Scottish economist James Steuart, both directly and indirectly.^[103]

Cantillon is one of the few economists cited by Adam Smith, who directly borrows Cantillon’s subsistence theory of wages.^[6]^[104] Large sections of Smith’s economic theory were possibly directly influenced by Cantillon, although in many respects Adam Smith advanced well beyond the scope of Cantillon.^[105] Some economic historians have argued that Adam Smith provided little of value from his own intellect, notably Schumpeter^[6]^[106] and Rothbard.^[107] In any case, through his influence on Adam Smith and the physiocrats, Cantillon was quite possibly the pre-classical economist who contributed most to the ideas of the classical school.^[108] Illustrative of this was Cantillon’s influence on Jean-Baptiste Say, which is noticeable in the methodology employed in the latter’s Treatise on Political Economy.^[6]^[109]

References…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cantillon

Story 3: Coronavirus or COVID-19 Exposed America’s Heavy Reliance On China For Medicines — Trump Administration May Use Defense Production Act To Manufacture Protective Gear — What About Replacing Medicine, Drug and Ingredients Imported From Communist China By Establishing American Producers in United States As In The Past? — Videos

New information on finding a coronavirus treatment

Richard Cantillon
Richard Cantillon
Born	1680s Tralee, County Kerry, Ireland
Died	1734 (aged about 54) London, England, Great Britain
Era	Age of Reason
Region	Western philosophy
School	Physiocracy
Main interests	Political economy
Notable ideas	Entrepreneur as risk-bearer,; monetary theory,; spatial economics,; theory of population growth,; cause and effect methodology
	Influences[show]
	Influenced[show]
Signature

[1]

[2]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[3]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

[84]

[85]

[86]

[87]

[88]

[89]

[90]

[91]

[92]

[93]

[94]

[95]

[96]

[97]

[98]

[99]

[100]

Employment status, sex, and age	Not seasonally adjusted			Seasonally adjusted(1)
Employment status, sex, and age	Feb. 2019	Jan. 2020	Feb. 2020	Feb. 2019	Oct. 2019	Nov. 2019	Dec. 2019	Jan. 2020	Feb. 2020
TOTAL
Civilian noninstitutional population	258,392	259,502	259,628	258,392	259,845	260,020	260,181	259,502	259,628
Civilian labor force	162,793	163,497	164,235	163,047	164,401	164,347	164,556	164,606	164,546
Participation rate	63.0	63.0	63.3	63.1	63.3	63.2	63.2	63.4	63.4
Employed	156,167	156,994	158,017	156,866	158,544	158,536	158,803	158,714	158,759
Employment-population ratio	60.4	60.5	60.9	60.7	61.0	61.0	61.0	61.2	61.1
Unemployed	6,625	6,504	6,218	6,181	5,857	5,811	5,753	5,892	5,787
Unemployment rate	4.1	4.0	3.8	3.8	3.6	3.5	3.5	3.6	3.5
Not in labor force	95,599	96,004	95,393	95,345	95,444	95,673	95,625	94,896	95,082
Persons who currently want a job	5,196	5,107	4,973	5,206	4,756	4,832	4,832	4,904	4,962

Men, 16 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population	124,965	125,513	125,575	124,965	125,687	125,773	125,852	125,513	125,575
Civilian labor force	86,056	86,331	86,597	86,399	86,901	87,104	87,049	87,088	87,008
Participation rate	68.9	68.8	69.0	69.1	69.1	69.3	69.2	69.4	69.3
Employed	82,311	82,701	83,047	83,066	83,776	84,018	84,034	83,940	83,871
Employment-population ratio	65.9	65.9	66.1	66.5	66.7	66.8	66.8	66.9	66.8
Unemployed	3,745	3,629	3,549	3,333	3,126	3,086	3,015	3,147	3,137
Unemployment rate	4.4	4.2	4.1	3.9	3.6	3.5	3.5	3.6	3.6
Not in labor force	38,909	39,183	38,979	38,566	38,786	38,669	38,803	38,426	38,568

Men, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population	116,513	117,110	117,181	116,513	117,242	117,331	117,413	117,110	117,181
Civilian labor force	83,435	83,600	83,804	83,588	83,911	84,057	84,008	84,087	84,001
Participation rate	71.6	71.4	71.5	71.7	71.6	71.6	71.5	71.8	71.7
Employed	80,117	80,358	80,592	80,677	81,196	81,377	81,390	81,345	81,202
Employment-population ratio	68.8	68.6	68.8	69.2	69.3	69.4	69.3	69.5	69.3
Unemployed	3,318	3,241	3,212	2,911	2,715	2,679	2,618	2,743	2,799
Unemployment rate	4.0	3.9	3.8	3.5	3.2	3.2	3.1	3.3	3.3
Not in labor force	33,078	33,511	33,377	32,925	33,330	33,274	33,405	33,023	33,180

Women, 16 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population	133,427	133,988	134,053	133,427	134,158	134,247	134,329	133,988	134,053
Civilian labor force	76,737	77,167	77,638	76,648	77,500	77,243	77,507	77,518	77,538
Participation rate	57.5	57.6	57.9	57.4	57.8	57.5	57.7	57.9	57.8
Employed	73,857	74,292	74,970	73,800	74,769	74,518	74,769	74,774	74,888
Employment-population ratio	55.4	55.4	55.9	55.3	55.7	55.5	55.7	55.8	55.9
Unemployed	2,880	2,874	2,668	2,848	2,731	2,725	2,738	2,744	2,651
Unemployment rate	3.8	3.7	3.4	3.7	3.5	3.5	3.5	3.5	3.4
Not in labor force	56,690	56,822	56,415	56,779	56,658	57,004	56,822	56,470	56,514

Women, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population	125,177	125,770	125,841	125,177	125,907	125,998	126,082	125,770	125,841
Civilian labor force	73,942	74,320	74,768	73,667	74,542	74,291	74,584	74,512	74,501
Participation rate	59.1	59.1	59.4	58.8	59.2	59.0	59.2	59.2	59.2
Employed	71,396	71,785	72,413	71,169	72,130	71,881	72,200	72,097	72,179
Employment-population ratio	57.0	57.1	57.5	56.9	57.3	57.0	57.3	57.3	57.4
Unemployed	2,546	2,535	2,355	2,497	2,411	2,411	2,383	2,415	2,323
Unemployment rate	3.4	3.4	3.1	3.4	3.2	3.2	3.2	3.2	3.1
Not in labor force	51,235	51,450	51,073	51,511	51,365	51,706	51,498	51,258	51,340

Both sexes, 16 to 19 years
Civilian noninstitutional population	16,702	16,622	16,606	16,702	16,696	16,692	16,686	16,622	16,606
Civilian labor force	5,416	5,578	5,663	5,792	5,948	5,999	5,964	6,007	6,043
Participation rate	32.4	33.6	34.1	34.7	35.6	35.9	35.7	36.1	36.4
Employed	4,655	4,851	5,012	5,019	5,218	5,278	5,213	5,273	5,378
Employment-population ratio	27.9	29.2	30.2	30.1	31.3	31.6	31.2	31.7	32.4
Unemployed	761	727	651	773	730	721	752	734	665
Unemployment rate	14.0	13.0	11.5	13.3	12.3	12.0	12.6	12.2	11.0
Not in labor force	11,286	11,044	10,943	10,909	10,748	10,693	10,722	10,614	10,562
Footnotes (1) The population figures are not adjusted for seasonal variation; therefore, identical numbers appear in the unadjusted and seasonally adjusted columns.
NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

	Advance Estimate	Second Estimate
	(Percent change from preceding quarter)
Real GDP	2.1	2.1
Current-dollar GDP	3.6	3.5
Gross domestic purchases price index	1.5	1.4
PCE price index	1.6	1.3
PCE price index excluding food and energy	1.3	1.2

	2020 Jan	2019 Dec	2019 Nov	2019 Oct	2019 Sep	2019 Aug	2019 Jul
	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
ECONOMIC PROBLEMS (NET)	10	11	13	11	15	11	14
Economy in general	2	2	4	3	4	3	3
Gap between rich and poor	2	1	2	1	1	1	2
Unemployment/Jobs	1	2	2	2	3	2	2
Federal budget deficit/Federal debt	1	2	2	2	2	3	2
Taxes	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Lack of money	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Wage issues	1	*	1	1	1	1	1
Foreign trade/Trade deficit	—	*	*	1	1	1	*
Corporate corruption	*	*	—	*	*	*	*
High cost of living/Inflation	*	*	*	*	1	*	1
Fuel/Oil prices	—	*	—	—	—	*	*
NON-ECONOMIC PROBLEMS (NET)	82	82	85	86	84	86	85
The government/Poor leadership	28	25	33	34	23	22	23
Immigration	6	10	11	13	16	18	27
Healthcare	6	5	6	5	5	6	7
Poverty/Hunger/Homelessness	5	6	4	3	3	3	3
Unifying the country	5	4	5	5	4	4	4
Ethics/moral/religious/family decline	5	3	3	3	3	2	3
Environment/Pollution/Climate change	4	5	3	4	6	3	4
Lack of respect for each other	4	4	3	3	2	4	3
Race relations/Racism	3	6	5	6	6	8	7
Guns/Gun control	2	1	2	2	5	8	1
Foreign policy/Foreign aid/Focus overseas	2	1	1	1	1	*	1
Education	2	1	2	2	2	2	3
Wars/War (nonspecific)/Fear of war	2	*	1	1	1	1	1
Situation in Iraq/ISIS	2	—	*	*	*	—	1
Drugs	1	2	2	2	2	1	2
National security	1	2	1	*	1	1	*
Elections/Election reform	1	2	1	1	1	*	1
Crime/Violence	1	2	2	2	1	4	1
Judicial system/Courts/Laws	1	1	1	2	2	1	1
International issues, problems	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Welfare	1	1	*	*	1	*	1
The media	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Lack of military defense	1	1	1	*	*	1	1
Terrorism	1	*	1	1	*	1	*
Abortion	1	*	2	1	1	1	1
War/conflict between Middle East nations	1	—	—	*	*	—	—
Children’s behavior/Way they are raised	*	1	*	*	*	*	*
Advancement of Computers/Technology	*	*	*	*	—	*	*
Gay/Lesbian rights	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
Care for the elderly/Medicare	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
Situation with Russia	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
School shootings	—	1	*	*	1	—	*
Situation with China	—	*	1	*	1	*	*
Social Security	—	*	1	*	*	*	*
Situation with North Korea	—	*	—	*	—	—	1
Other non-economic	6	1	5	5	4	5	4
No opinion	7	4	3	3	3	3	6
Total	112%	108%	119%	117%	117%	117%	127%
* Less than 0.5%; Percentages total more than 100% due to multiple mentions.
GALLUP

Category	Total	Men	Women	White	Black or African Ameri- can	Asian	Hispanic or Latino ethnicity
Civilian noninstitutional population	-811	-403	-408	-461	-59	-273	-323
Civilian labor force	-524	-289	-235	-297	-41	-171	-219
Participation rate	0	0	0	0	0	0	-0.1
Employed	-507	-279	-227	-287	-39	-167	-210
Employment-population ratio	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Unemployed	-17	-10	-9	-10	-2	-4	-9
Unemployment rate	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Not in labor force	-287	-115	-172	-164	-18	-102	-104
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates for the above race groups (White, Black or African American, and Asian) do not sum to totals because data are not presented for all races. Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race.

Category	Dec.-Jan. change, as published	2020 population control effect	Dec.-Jan. change, after removing the population control effect(1)
Civilian noninstitutional population	-679	-811	132
Civilian labor force	50	-524	574
Participation rate	0.2	0	0.2
Employed	-89	-507	418
Employment-population ratio	0.2	0	0.2
Unemployed	139	-17	156
Unemployment rate	0.1	0	0.1
Not in labor force	-729	-287	-442
(1) This Dec.-Jan. change is calculated by subtracting the population control effect from the over-the-month change in the published seasonally adjusted estimates.

Richard Cantillon

Born	1680s^[1] Tralee, County Kerry, Ireland
Died	1734^[2] (aged about 54) London, England, Great Britain

Era	Age of Reason
Region	Western philosophy
School	Physiocracy
Main interests	Political economy
Notable ideas	Entrepreneur as risk-bearer, monetary theory, spatial economics, theory of population growth, cause and effect methodology
Influences[show]
Influenced[show]
Signature

	Republican Party	Democratic Party	Same/Other/No opinion
	%	%	%
2019 Sep 3-15	40	44	16
2018 Sep 4-12	40	41	19
2017 Sep 6-10	34	41	25
2016 Sep 7-11	42	38	20
2015 Sep 9-13	42	37	23
2014 Sep 4-7	40	36	25
2014 Jul 7-10	35	35	29
2013 Sep 5-8	34	39	27
2012 Sep 6-9	39	49	13
2011 Sep 8-11	44	37	19
2010 Sep 13-16	40	38	22
2009 Aug 31-Sep 2	34	45	20
2008 Sep 8-11	39	46	14
2007 Sep 14-16	30	47	22
2006 Sep 7-10	34	49	16
2005 Sep 12-15	39	40	21
2005 Jan 3-5	41	41	18
2004 Sep 13-15	46	43	11
2004 Jan 12-15	39	46	15
2002 Jul 26-28	38	36	26
2001 Jan 10-14	39	39	22
1999 Jan 15-17	33	43	24
1998 Apr 17-19	40	42	18
1997 Jan 10-13	33	43	24
1996 Jul 25-28	37	41	22
1996 May 9-12	40	44	16
1995 Jan 16-18	42	32	26
1994 Oct 22-25	41	37	22
1994 Aug 15-16	38	37	25
1994 Aug 8-9	39	37	24
1994 Jul 15-17	39	32	29
1994 Jan	31	39	30
1993 Sep 10-12	31	37	32
1993 Jan 8-11	29	45	26
1992 Mar 26-29	34	40	26
1991 Jul 11-14	36	28	36
1991 Mar 7-10	40	27	33
1990 Oct	30	29	41
1988 Sep	38	33	29
1988 May 9-11	27	40	33
1987 Apr 10-13	29	37	34
1986 Jan 10-13	33	28	39
1985 Jan 25-28	39	29	32
1984 Aug 10-13	39	37	24
1984 Feb 10-13	30	32	38
1983 Nov 18-21	28	35	37
1982 Aug 13-16	26	35	39
1981 Jan 8-11	39	20	41
1980 Mar 28-31	28	32	40
1979 Oct 12-15	25	33	42
1976 Apr 23-26	18	39	43
1975 Oct 17-20	15	42	43
1972 Aug	28	34	38
1968 May	30	28	42
1964 Apr 24-29	16	40	44
1960 Feb 4-9	24	32	44
1956 Sep 20-25	55	45	—
GALLUP

Category	Jan. 2019	Nov. 2019	Dec. 2019	Jan. 2020	Change from: Dec. 2019- Jan. 2020
Employment status
Civilian noninstitutional population	258,239	260,020	260,181	259,502	–
Civilian labor force	163,142	164,347	164,556	164,606	–
Participation rate	63.2	63.2	63.2	63.4	–
Employed	156,627	158,536	158,803	158,714	–
Employment-population ratio	60.7	61.0	61.0	61.2	–
Unemployed	6,516	5,811	5,753	5,892	–
Unemployment rate	4.0	3.5	3.5	3.6	–
Not in labor force	95,097	95,673	95,625	94,896	–

Unemployment rates
Total, 16 years and over	4.0	3.5	3.5	3.6	–
Adult men (20 years and over)	3.7	3.2	3.1	3.3	–
Adult women (20 years and over)	3.6	3.2	3.2	3.2	–
Teenagers (16 to 19 years)	12.9	12.0	12.6	12.2	–
White	3.5	3.2	3.2	3.1	–
Black or African American	6.8	5.6	5.9	6.0	–
Asian	3.1	2.6	2.5	3.0	–
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity	4.8	4.2	4.2	4.3	–

Total, 25 years and over	3.2	2.9	2.8	2.9	–
Less than a high school diploma	5.7	5.3	5.2	5.5	–
High school graduates, no college	3.7	3.7	3.7	3.8	–
Some college or associate degree	3.4	2.9	2.7	2.8	–
Bachelor’s degree and higher	2.4	2.0	1.9	2.0	–

Reason for unemployment
Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs	3,060	2,804	2,686	2,665	–
Job leavers	816	776	829	836	–
Reentrants	1,944	1,663	1,655	1,838	–
New entrants	607	581	551	557	–

Duration of unemployment
Less than 5 weeks	2,319	2,026	2,065	2,059	–
5 to 14 weeks	1,999	1,753	1,730	1,755	–
15 to 26 weeks	898	865	812	887	–
27 weeks and over	1,259	1,219	1,186	1,166	–

Employed persons at work part time
Part time for economic reasons	5,105	4,288	4,148	4,182	–
Slack work or business conditions	3,402	2,634	2,657	2,655	–
Could only find part-time work	1,413	1,259	1,215	1,294	–
Part time for noneconomic reasons	20,984	21,532	21,586	22,154	–

Persons not in the labor force
Marginally attached to the labor force	1,498	1,244	1,230	1,342	–
Discouraged workers	418	316	289	337	–
– December – January changes in household data are not shown due to the introduction of updated population controls. NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

Category	Jan. 2019	Nov. 2019	Dec. 2019(P)	Jan. 2020(P)
EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY (Over-the-month change, in thousands)
Total nonfarm	269	261	147	225
Total private	258	247	142	206
Goods-producing	75	45	-5	32
Mining and logging	5	-11	-11	0
Construction	50	-2	11	44
Manufacturing	20	58	-5	-12
Durable goods(1)	21	45	-1	-11
Motor vehicles and parts	-0.3	40.5	1.3	-10.6
Nondurable goods	-1	13	-4	-1
Private service-providing	183	202	147	174
Wholesale trade	6.3	3.0	9.5	8.4
Retail trade	-7.9	-13.9	44.9	-8.3
Transportation and warehousing	46.8	22.6	3.9	28.3
Utilities	0.1	1.0	0.7	-1.4
Information	-11	9	8	5
Financial activities	11	12	5	-1
Professional and business services(1)	-2	37	14	21
Temporary help services	-28.2	2.6	5.9	-1.5
Education and health services(1)	56	73	22	72
Health care and social assistance	37.6	56.7	25.0	47.2
Leisure and hospitality	81	43	36	36
Other services	3	16	3	14
Government	11	14	5	19

(3-month average change, in thousands)
Total nonfarm	195	218	198	211
Total private	188	211	193	198

WOMEN AND PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES AS A PERCENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES(2)
Total nonfarm women employees	49.7	50.0	50.0	50.0
Total private women employees	48.3	48.6	48.7	48.7
Total private production and nonsupervisory employees	82.4	82.2	82.2	82.2

HOURS AND EARNINGS ALL EMPLOYEES
Total private
Average weekly hours	34.5	34.3	34.3	34.3
Average hourly earnings	$27.58	$28.34	$28.37	$28.44
Average weekly earnings	$951.51	$972.06	$973.09	$975.49
Index of aggregate weekly hours (2007=100)(3)	110.5	111.2	111.3	111.5
Over-the-month percent change	0.2	-0.1	0.1	0.2
Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2007=100)(4)	145.8	150.7	151.0	151.6
Over-the-month percent change	0.4	0.3	0.2	0.4

DIFFUSION INDEX (Over 1-month span)(5)
Total private (258 industries)	62.2	63.4	55.6	59.7
Manufacturing (76 industries)	59.2	61.8	46.1	46.7
Footnotes (1) Includes other industries, not shown separately. (2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries. (3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours. (4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls. (5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment. (P) Preliminary
NOTE: Data have been revised to reflect March 2019 benchmark levels and updated seasonal adjustment factors.

	Satisfied	Very satisfied
	%	%
$100,000+	96	76
Republicans	93	80
Married	93	74
College graduate only	93	71
Men	92	67
Postgraduate	92	66
Age 18-34	92	62
$40,000-<$100,000	92	66
Whites	92	67
Age 55+	90	67
Have children under 18	90	68
Have no children under 18	89	64
Some college	89	63
Independents	89	60
Age 35-54	87	63
High school or less	87	62
Women	87	63
Nonwhites	86	59
Unmarried	86	56
Democrats	86	56
<$40,000	80	54
GALLUP, JAN. 2-15, 2020

Rush Limbaugh
Limbaugh in 2019
Born	Rush Hudson Limbaugh III January 12, 1951 (age 69) Cape Girardeau, Missouri, U.S.
Nationality	American
Alma mater	Southeast Missouri State University (did not graduate)
Occupation	Radio host, political commentator
Years active	1967–present
Net worth	US$500 million (2016)
Spouse(s)	Roxy Maxine McNeely (m. 1977; div. 1980) Michelle Sixta (m. 1983; div. 1990) Marta Fitzgerald (m. 1994; div. 2004) Kathryn Rogers (m. 2010)
Website	rushlimbaugh.com

Conservatism in the United States
This article is part of a series on

Schools[show]
Principles[show]
History[show]
People [show]
Parties [show]
Think tanks[show]
Other organizations[show]
Media [show]
Variants and movements[show]
See also[show]
Conservatism portal
v t e

National Security Agency

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Story 1: U-3 Unemployment Rate at 3.5%, U-6 Unemployment Rate at 7.0% and Labor Participating Rate of 63.4% and 273,000 New Job Created and 95 Million Not In Labor Force in February 2020 — Economy Growing at 2.1% in Fourth Quarter 2019 — Videos —

CNBC’s full interview with White House advisor Larry Kudlow on February jobs and coronavirus concern

February jobs report: US employment growth soars

February Jobs Report Beats Expectations, Adds 273,000 New Jobs | MSNBC

Here’s how the coronavirus is already affecting China’s economy

Jobs market still looks strong

Employment Situation Summary

The PDF version of the news release

News release charts

Supplemental Files Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

Gross Domestic Product, Fourth Quarter and Year 2019 (Second Estimate)

Story 2: President Trump Signs $8.3 Billion Coronavirus Funding Bill and Visit Center for Disease Control (CDC) — Videos

Trump signs coronavirus funding bill, reacts to February jobs report

Coronavirus outbreak: Trump visits CDC laboratories, says he’s ‘not concerned’ about COVID-19

Live: Trump receives a Coronavirus briefing from officials at the CDC

President Trump Visits the CDC Headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia

President Trump in Atlanta at CDC

Story 3: Vice-President Pence Update of COVID-19 Task Force — The Risk To American People of Getting COVID-19 Is Low — By End of Next Week Over 4 Million COVID-19 Test Kits Will Be Available — Videos

WATCH LIVE: Mike Pence and health officials deliver updates on coronavirus response – 3/6/2020

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1408

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1400-1407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1392 1399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1386-1391

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1379-1785

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1372-1378

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1363-1371

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1352-1362

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1343-1351

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1335-1342

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1326-1334

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1318-1325

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1310-1317

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1300-1309

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1291-1299

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1282-1290

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1276-1281

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1267-1275

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1266

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1256-1265

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1246-1255

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1236-1245

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1229-1235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1218-1128

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1210-1217

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1209

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969