Macroeconomics as Systems Theory:

Transcending the Micro-Macro

Dichotomy 1st Edition Richard E.
Wagner
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/macroeconomics-as-systems-theory-transcending-th
e-micro-macro-dichotomy-1st-edition-richard-e-wagner/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

James M. Buchanan: A Theorist of Political Economy and

Social Philosophy 1st ed. Edition Richard E. Wagner

https://ebookmass.com/product/james-m-buchanan-a-theorist-of-
political-economy-and-social-philosophy-1st-ed-edition-richard-e-
wagner/

Meanings as species First Edition. Edition Richard

https://ebookmass.com/product/meanings-as-species-first-edition-
edition-richard/

Demystifying Global Macroeconomics 3rd Edition John E.

Marthinsen

https://ebookmass.com/product/demystifying-global-
macroeconomics-3rd-edition-john-e-marthinsen/

Nonlinear Differential Equations in Micro/Nano

Mechanics: Application in Micro/Nano Structures and
Electromechanical Systems 1st Edition Ali Koochi

https://ebookmass.com/product/nonlinear-differential-equations-
in-micro-nano-mechanics-application-in-micro-nano-structures-and-
electromechanical-systems-1st-edition-ali-koochi/
The New Humanities Reader 6th Edition Richard E. Miller

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-new-humanities-reader-6th-
edition-richard-e-miller/

Macro Cookbook for Men Andy De Santis

https://ebookmass.com/product/macro-cookbook-for-men-andy-de-
santis/

Qualitative Theory of ODEs: An Introduction to

Dynamical Systems Theory 1st Edition Henryk Zoladek

https://ebookmass.com/product/qualitative-theory-of-odes-an-
introduction-to-dynamical-systems-theory-1st-edition-henryk-
zoladek/

The Economics of European Integration 6th Edition

Richard E. Baldwin

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-economics-of-european-
integration-6th-edition-richard-e-baldwin/

The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as

Conceptual Design 1st Edition Luciano Floridi

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-logic-of-information-a-theory-
of-philosophy-as-conceptual-design-1st-edition-luciano-floridi/
Richard E. Wagner

Macroeconomics
as Systems Theory
Transcending
the Micro-Macro
Dichotomy
 Macroeconomics as Systems Theory

“Wagner brings the complexity revolution to macroeconomics, which has side-

stepped it until now. We have not known how to do complexity macroeconomics,
but with this important book Wagner has shown us the way. Key is the synthe-
sis of process and structure. Fresh entrepreneurial dreams jostle together in a
common institutional framework that constrains and shapes the resulting turbu-
lent flow of economic life. Wagner’s theory enables us to use complexity tools
to work out the macroeconomic consequences of this microeconomic jostling. A
macroeconomics revolution is nigh.”
—Roger Koppl, Professor Finance, Syracuse University

“Wagner’s approach to macroeconomics represents a major step away from main-

stream macroeconomics. He depicts the macroeconomy as a complex interaction
among individuals, all of whom have their own plans. This stands in contrast
with the aggregate nature of macroeconomic analysis, whether one is thinking
of macroeconomic aggregates in a Keynesian framework or incorporating micro-
foundations in a representative agent framework. Wagner’s macroeconomy is a
spontaneous order in which institutions can evolve to facilitate mutually bene-
ficial interactions among individuals. This thought-provoking book will change
the way readers think about macroeconomics.”
—Randall G. Holcombe, DeVoe Moore Professor of Economics,
Florida State University

“This book is an important contribution to the debate on the nature and scope
of macroeconomic analysis. Wagner warns us against questionable attempts to
aggregate, measure and draw doubtful recipes for policy-making. Instead, he
sticks to his subjectivist guns, bridges the gap between micro- and macroeco-
nomics, and offers new insights into the role of institutions. Wagner deserves
praise for this impressive scholarly achievement. While developing a literature
that began with the Scottish Enlightenment, his pages provide path-breaking
ideas that will capture the attention of the professional economist and fascinate
those who believe it is high time we start thinking out of the orthodox box.”
—Enrico Colombatto, Professor of Economics, University of Turin
 Richard E. Wagner

Macroeconomics
as Systems Theory
Transcending the Micro-Macro Dichotomy
Richard E. Wagner
Department of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA, USA

ISBN 978-3-030-44464-8 ISBN 978-3-030-44465-5 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44465-5

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informa-
tion in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Preface

This book examines macroeconomic theory from within a nonconven-

tional analytical window provided by theories pertaining to complex sys-
tems, in contrast to conventional theories grounded on aggregation. The
resulting difference in analytical perspective is huge. In 1919, the Swedish
economist Erik Lindahl, in an essay that was later included in his 1939
collection of Studies in the Theory of Capital and Income, set forth what
I think is the first explicit distinction between micro and macro levels of
economic analysis. Lindahl assigned to micro theory the domain of indi-
vidual choice and assigned to macro theory the domain of societal inter-
action among choosers. Lindahl’s disjunction between micro and macro
leads directly to the recognition that economies are complex systems of
human interaction whose properties cannot be discerned simply through
aggregation over the individuals who constitute a society. Lindahl’s es-
say remained in Swedish until it was published in English in 1939. In
the interim, John Maynard Keynes’s (1936) General Theory of Employ-
ment, Interest, and Money was published and almost immediately achieved
professional dominance; ever since macroeconomics has centered on ag-
gregation and not on human interaction along with the phenomena that
emerge through interaction.
In contrast, this book recurs to Lindahl’s distinction between choice
and interaction. Hence, macro phenomena are complex phenomena that
often are not direct products of someone’s choice because they emerge

v
vi PREFACE

through interaction among choosers. Such phenomena are often char-

acterized by such notions as invisible hands and spontaneous orders. It
should be noted, however, that “spontaneous order” is not synonymous
with an absence of prevision and planning. To the contrary, societies are
rife with planning. Every person and entity in society makes and pursues
plans. A society is a complex ecology of plans. That ecology, however, is
not plausibly reducible to a single plan because the actual achievement of
such reduction lies beyond anyone’s capacity. This situation means sim-
ply that macro outcomes emerge within an ecology of plans that contains
myriad agents who are pursuing their plans inside an environment where
other people are doing the same thing, and often in a manner where plans
conflict with one another.
To describe a phenomenon as having emerged spontaneously as against
having been chosen is not automatically to describe those outcomes as
socially beneficial in some fashion. For instance, recessions and depres-
sions can be emergent outcomes just as can periods of sustained material
progress. The standard macro approach posits the presence of some ex-
ternal agent, a form of deus ex machina, who acts with a single-minded
devotion to promoting socially beneficial over socially harmful outcomes.
In contrast, the ecological orientation I pursue here abandons the pre-
sumption that political agents are a special breed of humanity that is wise
in ways that ordinary people are not. To the contrary, political agents op-
erate with the same range of desires and limitations on their capacities as
everyone else in society.
Lindahl’s formulation points toward an ecological treatment of macro
theory where the relation between micro and macro is a relation be-
tween the parts of something and the entirety of that thing. Within an
ecological scheme of thought, the institutional arrangements that people
generate through interaction are a central feature of any effort at macro
theorizing, for institutions, along with organizations and societal norms,
are macro and not micro phenomena. Yet contemporary macro theoriz-
ing gives but minimal attention to institutions, usually by referring to
such things as price rigidity or incomplete contracting. The absence of
any serious concern with the relation between institutional arrangements
and macro theory reflects the choice-theoretic character of contemporary
macro theorizing where institutions are merely data. By contrast, institu-
tions are emergent products of human interaction within the interactionist
orientation explored here.
 PREFACE vii

This book treats macroeconomic theory as a theory of society orga-

nized through the pursuit of economizing action when a significant fea-
ture of such action is the generation of such meso-level phenomena as
commercial and civil organizations, conventions and standards, arrange-
ments regarding money and credit, legal conventions, and political or-
ganizations. Conventional macro theory presents a national economy as a
collection of such aggregate variables as output, employment, investment,
and a price level, and seeks to develop theoretical relationships among
those variables. In contrast, the social-theoretic approach to macro or so-
cial theory this book sets forth treats the standard macro variables as hav-
ing been shaped through social institutions, conventions, and processes
that in turn are generated through interaction among economizing per-
sons. The relation between micro and macro levels of analysis is a rela-
tionship between the parts of something and the entirety of that thing.
Micro denotes the individual entities whose actions and interactions gen-
erate the phenomena we designate as macro. The object denoted as macro
is thus of a higher order of complexity than the object denoted as micro.
This book sketches this vision of a social-theoretic orientation toward the
societal entirety of human interaction.

Fairfax, USA Richard E. Wagner

 Acknowledgments

Three anonymous readers from Palgrave Macmillan offered much helpful

advice and appreciated succor prior to my preparation of the final version
of this book. During the spring 2018 and 2019 semesters at George Ma-
son University, students in my advanced graduate class on market process
theory worked through earlier versions of the manuscript, offering valu-
able constructive criticism along the way. Those students are too numer-
ous to mention here by name, and it would be invidious of me to single
out some of them for particular mention. All the same, I do want to ex-
press my gratitude to them for their fine help and support. Besides those
anonymous students, I would like to express explicit gratitude to Abigail
Devereaux who preceded those two classes and who worked with me as I
was exploring whether to undertake this endeavor. Once I decided to do
so, moreover, she joined me as a colleague in some complementary lines
of research while she was completing her dissertation and is now pursuing
her academic career at Wichita State University.

ix
 Contents

1 Macroeconomics as Systems Theory: Setting the Stage 1

2 Models of Social Order: Mechanical vs. Creative 35

3 Structures of Production and Properties of Social Order 65

4 Diachronic Action Within an Ecology of Plans 97

5 Kaleidic Economies and Internally Generated Change 127

6 Entangled Political Economy Within Human

Population Systems 157

7 Public Policy as the Political Calculation

of Economic Value 189

8 Money, Credit, and Commanding the Societal Heights 221

9 Reason, Sentiment, and Democratic Action 251

xi
xii CONTENTS

10 Liberalism, Collectivism, and Democracy 275

Author Index 305

Subject Index 311

 List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 A monocentric or homophonic network 4

Fig. 1.2 A polycentric or polyphonic network 5
Fig. 1.3 Emergence of aggregate variables within an ecology
of plans 15
Fig. 2.1 Synecological decomposition of stag hunt with emergent
coordination 58
Fig. 3.1 Economic calculation and location of political enterprises 88
Fig. 6.1 Feudalism vs. liberalism in political economy: panel A 165
Fig. 6.2 Feudalism vs. liberalism in political economy: panel B 166
Fig. 6.3 Orthodox political business cycle model 172
Fig. 10.1 Entangled political economy trumps private vs. public
ordering 276

xiii
 CHAPTER 1

Macroeconomics as Systems Theory:

Setting the Stage

Macroeconomics entails theorizing about the entirety of an economic sys-

tem, in contrast to microeconomics which entails theorizing about vari-
ous parts of that system. This distinction suggests the image of someone
standing in a hot-air balloon as it ascends from a town square. As the
ascension continues, a wider field of vision appears; however, the clarity
of individual objects on the ground weakens. An economic system in its
entirety is obviously an object of great interest because its qualities and
properties affect the lives of everyone who inhabits that social system.
While it is easy to understand why economists would seek to theorize
about economic systems in their entirety, a significant challenge accom-
panies that theoretical effort because no one can see that system in its
entirety (Veetil and Wagner 2015). Theorists cannot see the object about
which they theorize, and yet they theorize about it all the same. This sit-
uation is not unusual. It is common. No physicist has seen gravity, and
yet physicists theorize about it and its properties. Those theoretical efforts
are guided by a desire to explain such observable phenomena as the rising
and falling of tides in relation to the moon’s proximity. Economists face
a similar situation. They, too, observe such phenomena as variability in
wealth across time and place, and seek to theorize about the underlying
processes that might generate those observations.
To be sure, economics, or social theory more generally, pertains to dif-
ferent types of objects than does physics, or the natural sciences generally.
Humans are part of the natural world, so human actions are subject to
natural processes. For instance, humans will die without receiving water

© The Author(s) 2020 1

R. E. Wagner, Macroeconomics as Systems Theory,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44465-5_1
2 R. E. WAGNER

or food at regular intervals. They will also die if exposed to extreme tem-
peratures for prolonged periods. And even if experienced temperatures are
not that extreme, humans become distinctly uncomfortable when exposed
to temperatures above 80 degrees Fahrenheit or below 60 degrees, and so
seek to change their environment through heating or cooling. Humans
are biological creatures, so are subject to biological as well as physical
laws. Indeed, it is possible to develop an economic theory around the
imaginary actions of a Robinson Crusoe alone on his island. Such the-
ories could be described as laws of a natural economy in recognition of
Crusoe’s struggle for survival within the natural world.
But we find Crusoe alone only in our imaginations. That alone-
ness, moreover, creates severe analytical problems because Crusoe cannot
duplicate himself. If you start with Crusoe, you can never get to society.
Yet all of our observations of humans, both historical and archeological,
pertain to humans living in the groups that we designate variously as tribes
or societies. This situation of humans existing in groups creates analyti-
cal challenges and opportunities that extend beyond any effort to reduce
humans to adherence to physical and biological laws. Sure, as part of the
natural world humans are subject to the laws of natural science. Their
living together in societies, however, creates a further menu of analyti-
cal questions, and with that menu speaking to what Norbert Elias (1939
[1982]) describes as The Civilizing Process, which pertains to the varied
settings within which infants mature into adults. This menu of questions
takes us to the brink of the chasm that separates theorizing about micro or
individual phenomena from theorizing about macro or social phenomena.
Macroeconomics construed as systems theory pertains to some concept of
society as a whole, in contrast to theorizing about the individual entities
that constitute that society. Indeed, macroeconomics construed as sys-
tems theory has much in common with what Joseph Schumpeter (1954:
12–22) described as economic sociology as one of the five branches
of economics, the others being theory, history, statistics, and political
economy.
Any scheme of thought will start with intuitive hunches that are orga-
nized through the analytical tools and techniques that an author possesses.
As the Preface notes, so far as I am aware Erik Lindahl advanced the
first explicit distinction between microeconomics and macroeconomics.
He did this in 1919 in a paper in Swedish that wasn’t published in English
until Lindahl (1919 [1939]). For Lindahl, what he described as microe-
conomics pertained to individual action, while macroeconomics was the
 1 MACROECONOMICS AS SYSTEMS THEORY: SETTING THE STAGE 3

domain of interaction among individuals within society. Micro thus per-

tains to the parts of an economic system while macro pertains to the
entirety of that system. Lindahl wrote at the time when the develop-
ment of national income accounting was just getting underway, and with
Dianne Coyle (2015) providing a lucid account of that development.
Moreover, the analytical schema of systems theory awaited development
when Lindahl articulated his micro–macro distinction. In the absence of
analytical tools for thinking about systems of interacting agents, it is easy
to understand how macro variables came to be treated as aggregations
over the activities of the economizing entities within a society.
But aggregation over individual entities is not the only way a macro
theory can be articulated. An alternative approach is through systems
theory, where the micro–macro relationship is exemplified beautifully by
Thomas Schelling (1978) who set forth an analytical template for explor-
ing how system-level properties can emerge out of micro-level interaction,
including situations where rational individual action can generate systemic
outcomes that can be disagreeable to a good number of the participants.
Starting with Ludwig Bertalanffy (1968), the idea of systems theory as
pertaining to the systematic study of parts-to-whole relationships took a
sizeable step forward, and with Ervin Laszlo (1996) and Donella Mead-
ows (2008) providing succinct statements of the challenges of thinking
in terms of systems of interacting agents. Any system can be described as
containing elements along with connections among those elements. The
performance of the system depends on both the properties of the ele-
ments and the pattern of connection among the elements. There are two
distinct formats through which someone can theorize about systems of
interacting elements. One format arises when those elements are mechan-
ical or robotic. The other format pertains to systems where the elements
are creative or volitional. This difference between types of system makes
all the difference in the world for theorizing about economies in their
entirety.
Contemporary economic theory typically treats economies as mechan-
ical, as illustrated by repeated references to “economic mechanisms” and
similar notions. In contrast, this book is grounded on the presumption
that economic systems contain agents who are creative and can exer-
cise volition. When macro theory is approached within the framework
of systems theory, it becomes an adventure in theorizing about invisi-
ble hands (Clower 1994; Aydinonat 2008) and spontaneously generated
social order (Howitt and Clower 2000).
4 R. E. WAGNER

The Network Architecture of Economic Systems

All systems, whether populated by mechanical or creative entities, have
an architecture based on some pattern of connection among the enti-
ties that constitute the system. Graph theory provides a convenient ana-
lytical framework for working with systems of interacting agents, with
Richard Trudeau (1993) making a lucid presentation of graph theory and
with Jason Potts (2000) developing system-theoretic ideas lucidly in a
microeconomic context. Within a graph-theoretic framework, the entities
are commonly denoted as nodes and the connections denoted as edges.
Figures 1.1 and 1.2 contrast two forms of network architecture that will
be used often in this book. Both networks contain 15 nodes. Those net-
works differ in their patterns of connection among the participants, and
with a central presumption of network theory being that patterns of con-
nection have significant analytical work to do. Where Fig. 1.1 denotes a
monocentric or homophonic network, Fig. 1.2 denotes a polycentric or
polyphonic network.
Both terms pertain to the same formal distinction but have been devel-
oped within different contexts. The pair monocentric–polycentric has
been invoked in social settings, originally by Michael Polanyi’s (1951)
treatment of liberty within society and then elaborated often by Vincent
Ostrom, especially as found in Ostrom (1999). The pair homophonic–
polyphonic pertains to literature and music, which Mikhail Bakhtin
(1981, 1984) expresses lucidly in distinguishing between settings where

Fig. 1.1 A monocentric or homophonic network

 1 MACROECONOMICS AS SYSTEMS THEORY: SETTING THE STAGE 5

Fig. 1.2 A polycentric or polyphonic network

all figures in a story speak through the author and settings where the fig-
ures speak among themselves. Existing macroeconomic theory operates
almost wholly within a monocentric or homophonic voice. In contrast,
this book explores how macroeconomics might be reoriented in a poly-
centric or polyphonic direction.
Figure 1.1 illustrates a monocentric or homophonic network.
Figure 1.1 resembles the tables of organization that sometimes appear
in textbooks on management and organization. Monocentric networks
are governed by relationships of superior-to-subordinate; someone who
occupies a higher node in that network holds superior rank to those who
occupy lower nodes. Any such sketch is an abstraction from a reality that
is more complex than the sketch depicts. Figure 1.1 invites the image of
higher nodes issuing orders to lower nodes, and with those lower nodes
responding to those orders and subsequently being evaluated by those
higher nodes. The relationship superior-subordinate flows in two direc-
tions, as all relationships do, with orders flowing downward and actions
flowing upward. As usual with such abstractions, both truth and fiction
inhabit Fig. 1.1. This book is not about organization theory, so no effort
will be made to develop more complex depictions of the actual operation
of organizations that have nominally monocentric character.
6 R. E. WAGNER

Figure 1.2 sets forth a polycentric or polyphonic network. One thing

that is immediately apparent from Fig. 1.2 is the absence of any obvious
concept of higher and lower or superior and inferior. All nodes are cre-
ated equal, as it were, or at least as they seem superficially to be. In both
panels, all nodes are constructed to be the same size to avoid cluttering
the graphics as well as to avoid dealing with possible analytical implica-
tions of differing size and significance of nodes. With respect to the pat-
tern of connection among the nodes in Fig. 1.2, two points are worth
mentioning. First, the graph is completely connected, which means that
starting from any node you can travel to every other node without leav-
ing the graph. There are no orphans as it were, or no Robinson Crusoes
to recur to a common idiom of economic theory. Second, the density of
connection varies among the nodes. Two of the 15 nodes are connected
to only one node. Most of the nodes are connected to two other nodes.
One node is connected to three other nodes, and with one node being
connected to five other nodes.
A significant economic-theoretic question regarding the application of
concepts from graph theory concerns the scalability of graphs. If the net-
work depicted by Fig. 1.1 were to expand from 15 to 30 nodes, would
a similar pattern of connectivity remain or would there be a tendency for
some nodes to become increasingly popular relative to the other nodes?
In the former case, a network is described as being scalable. With scalable
networks, an expansion in the size of the network does not change net-
work architecture to any significant extent. Sure, there will be differences
among nodes in the number of their connections, but the distribution of
connections among nodes will not change significantly with expansions
in the size of the network. Connections, in other words, are formed ran-
domly as new nodes enter the graph.
The alternative to a scalable network is a scale-free network. The distri-
bution of connections is not generated randomly as new nodes enter the
graph. To the contrary, new nodes might reflect preference for attaching
to densely connected nodes. To the extent this is so, an expansion in the
size of the graph will confer some advantage on densely connected nodes.
This possibility might resemble a rich get richer setting, but we should
also remember that graph theory is an abstraction that might not cap-
ture everything of relevance. For instance, an expansion in the number of
connections via preferential attachment increases the managerial problems
that the participants who operate inside that node must resolve. There are
well-known limits on the ability of organizations to manage their affairs,
 1 MACROECONOMICS AS SYSTEMS THEORY: SETTING THE STAGE 7

some of which is subsumed under the concept of diseconomies of scale.

If this situation obtains, there will be limits to preferential attachment
that is obscured by simply assuming that new attachments follow some
nonrandom process in mechanistic fashion.
A related consideration excluded from Fig. 1.1, but which will be
explored in later chapters, concerns the properties of interaction between
market-based entities that form under the principles and institutions of
private property and political-based entities that form under the princi-
ples and institutions of public property. It is conventional to treat the two
types of entity as indistinguishable, as distinct from their being merely
similar. In the latter case, a system of political economy that contains both
market-based and political-based entities will exhibit different properties
along the lines that Wagner (2016) sets forth in describing democratically
established political enterprises as peculiar forms of business enterprise.
They are enterprises, to be sure, in that they provide services that are both
valued by some people and paid for by other people, only the valuers and
the payers do not comprise identical sets. Looking ahead, Chapter 8 will
explain that standard questions regarding whether the recession of 2008 is
a product of excessive or insufficient regulation is a category mistake that
arises from inadequacies in our theories of macroeconomics and politi-
cal economy. More generally, the system-theoretic framework this book
employs will explain how systems can exert causal force on society even
though systems are inanimate, and with Fredrick Pryor (2008) exploring
this theme.

DSGE: Construing Economies

as Mechanistic Systems
Léon Walras (1874) set in motion the economic-theoretic tradition of
treating economies as mechanistic systems. Walras conceptualized an
economy as an equilibrated set of relationships. To be sure, Walras took
his construction as being more of an analytical extremum or stalking horse
than as a depiction of the ways of the world. All the same, Walras’s for-
mulation inspired a parade of refinements over the following century that
resulted in formal proofs of necessary conditions that if they held an econ-
omy would be in a state of equilibrium, and with Roy Weintraub (1993)
exploring the development of general equilibrium theory. To be sure, no
theorist has claimed that those necessary conditions describe economic
8 R. E. WAGNER

reality. Most theorists have proceeded differently by arguing that a fail-

ure for those conditions to hold would potentially though not necessarily
offer scope for political action to improve the performance of an eco-
nomic system.
The Walrasian scheme of thought has morphed into what is now
known as dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE). Similar to Wal-
ras, the economic system is still construed as a set of equilibrated relation-
ships among economizing entities. Only now, those relationships are sub-
ject to exogenous shocks that disturb previous relationships which in turn
call for readjustments. Thus, an economy is subject to the turbulence of
continual change, only that change is exogenous, meaning it comes from
outside the system, as against being an internal feature of an economic
system. Absent exogenous shocks, the system is static both at the system-
level and with respect to the nodes that constitute that system. While
economic theory speaks of individuals as making choices, the theory does
not genuinely incorporate choice into its analytics. People act as they are
programmed to act by the utility functions they are presumed to possess
and by the market-clearing prices they face. Within this analytical scheme,
people are reduced to robotic status, as Ross Emmett (2006) sets forth
in contrasting Frank Knight’s approach to individual action with that of
George Stigler and Gary Becker (1977).
Mechanistic systems can be relatively simple or exceedingly complex,
but in either case it is interaction among the parts of the system that
govern the system’s performance. A building’s heating system is relatively
simple; the system of coding that sends missiles into space is so complex
that no person has written the entire code. All such systems entail expec-
tations of what would constitute desired performance. Should actual per-
formance fall short of expectations, the problem of mechanism design and
repair arises, which speaks to diagnosing and repairing the source of poor
performance. Economists mostly operate within the parameters appropri-
ate for mechanical systems. DSGE theories, moreover, reduce what might
have been a complex, creative system to simple mechanism. If an economy
exists in a state of equilibrium, an economy that contains millions or even
billions of agents can be analytically reduced to a single, representative
agent.
This situation illustrates the Janus-headed character of our theoreti-
cal constructions. As a positive matter, theoretical constructions allow us
to dig more deeply into our materials of interest to uncover phenomena
 1 MACROECONOMICS AS SYSTEMS THEORY: SETTING THE STAGE 9

that might have been hidden from view at more superficial levels of exam-
ination. But there is also a negative side to any theoretical construction,
which is the hardening of analytical focus that it fosters. This pertains to
what is often called the problem of tractability. Some theories might allow
easier or sharper answers to questions than other theories. While this sit-
uation offers good reason for pursuing such theories, that pursuit often
impedes the development of alternative theories. One theory may well
enable sharper answers to one set of questions than another theory, which
supports opting for sharper answers. But a different theory might pose a
menu of different questions that would never have been posed within the
other theory, and that alternative menu might be able to address signif-
icant questions if only that theory had been pursued. Theorizing about
economic systems in their entirety can over some conceptual domains be
helped by the closed form of equilibrium theorizing while over other con-
ceptual domains an open-ended approach to theorizing about economic
systems might yield useful insight.

OEE: Construing Economies

as Creative and Volitional Systems
We can agree that a macro theory pertains to the whole of the economic
activities within a society, in contrast to micro theories which pertain to
parts of that whole. But how might we conceptualize that object when
we can’t even see it? This calls for what Joseph Schumpeter (1954) called
a “pre-analytical cognitive vision” that a theorist subsequently sets forth.
At this point we come to one of those many forks in the theoretical road.
The most commonly traveled branch of that fork stipulates the existence
of a set of equilibrated relationships among the members of a society.
Such theorists don’t take this stipulation as a literal truth about society,
but rather use it as an analytical point of departure for trying to render
sensible their observations about aggregate economic variables. While the
formality of equilibrium theory since Walras (1874) has revolved around
the presumption that the parts of an economic system comprise a coher-
ent pattern, the equilibrium vision sets aside concern with and interest in
the processes through which that coherence might come about.
To pursue the generation of such coherence, this book seeks to incor-
porate some social-theoretic ideas about open-endedness, emergence,
evolution, and complexity into a macro theory, two early efforts at which
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
may be sealed or corked, and boxed at once.
If large quantities of honey are extracted, it may be most
conveniently kept in barrels. These should be first-class, and ought
to be waxed before using them, to make assurance doubly sure
against any leakage. To wax the barrels, we may use beeswax, but
paraffine is cheaper, and just as efficient. Three or four quarts of the
hot paraffine or wax should be turned into the barrel, the bung driven
in tight, the barrel twirled in every position, after which the bung is
loosened by a blow with the hammer, and the residue of the wax
turned out. Economy requires that the barrels be warm when waxed,
so that only a thin coat will be appropriated.
Large tin cans, waxed and soldered at the openings after being
filled, are cheap, and may be the most desirable receptacles for
extracted honey.
Extracted honey should always be kept in dry apartments.
 CHAPTER XIII.
HANDLING BEES.

But some one asks the question, shall we not receive those
merciless stings, or be introduced to what "Josh" calls the "business
end of the bee?" Perhaps there is no more causeless, or more
common dread, in existence, than this of bees' stings. When bees
are gathering, they will never sting unless provoked. When at the
hives—especially if Italians—they will rarely make an attack. The
common belief, too, that some persons are more liable to attack than
others, is, I think, put too strong. With the best opportunity to judge,
with our hundreds of students, I think I may safely say that one is
almost always as liable to attack as another, except that he is more
quiet, or does not greet the usually amiable passer-by, with those
terrific thrusts, which would vanquish even a practiced pugilist.
Occasionally a person may have a peculiar odor about his person
that angers bees and invites their darting tilts, with drawn swords,
venom-tipped, yet, though I take my large classes each season, at
frequent intervals, to see and handle the bees, each for himself, I still
await the first proof of the fact, that one person is more liable to be
stung than another, providing each carries himself with that
composed and dignified bearing, that is so pleasing to the bees.
True, some people, filled with dread, and the belief that bees regard
them with special hate and malice, are so ready for the battle, that
they commence the strife with nervous head-shakes and beating of
the air, and thus force the bees to battle, nolens volens. I believe that
only such are regarded with special aversion by the bees. Hence, I
believe that no one need be stung.
Bees should never be jarred, nor irritated by quick motions.
Those with nervous temperaments—and I plead very guilty on this
point—need not give up, but at first better protect their faces, and
perhaps even their hands, till time and experience show them that
fear is vain; then they will divest themselves of all such useless
encumbrances. Bees are more cross when they are gathering no
honey, and at such times, black bees and hybrids, especially, are so
irritable that even the experienced apiarist will wish a veil.

THE BEST BEE-VEIL.

This should be made of black tarlatan, sewed up like a bag, a half
yard long, without top or bottom, and with a diameter of the rim of a
common straw-hat. Gather the top with braid, so that it will just slip
over the crown of the hat—else, sew it to the edge of the rim of some
cheap, cool hat, in fact, I prefer this style—and gather the bottom
with rubber cord or rubber tape, so that it may be drawn over the hat
rim, and then over the head, as we adjust the hat.

Fig. 62.

Some prefer to dispense with the rubber cord at the bottom (Fig,
62), and have the veil long so as to be gathered in by the coat or
dress. If the black tarlatan troubles by coloring the shirt or collar, the
lower part may be made of white netting. When in use, the rubber
cord draws the lower part close about the neck, or the lower part
tucks within the coat or vest (Fig, 62), and we are safe. This kind of a
veil is cool, does not impede vision at all, and can be made by any
woman at a cost of less than twenty cents. Common buckskin or
sheep-skin gloves can be used, as it will scarcely pay to get special
gloves for the purpose, for the most timid person—I speak from
experience—will soon consider gloves an unnecessary nuisance.
Special rubber gloves are sold by those who keep on hand
apiarian supplies.
Some apiarists think that dark clothing is specially obnoxious to
bees.
For ladies, my friend, Mrs. Baker, recommends a dress which, by
use of the rubber skirt-lift or other device, can be instantly raised or
lowered. This will be convenient in the apiary, and tidy anywhere.
The Gabrielle style is preferred, and of a length just to reach the
floor. It should be belted at the waist, and cut down from the neck in
front, one-third the length of the waist, to permit the tucking in of the
veil. The under-waist should fasten close about the neck. The
sleeves should be quite long to allow free use of the arms, and
gathered in with a rubber cord at the wrist, which will hug the rubber
gauntlets or arm, and prevent bees from crawling up the sleeves.
The pantalets should be straight and full, and should also have the
rubber cord in the hem to draw them close about the top of the
shoes.
Mrs. Baker also places great stress on the wet "head-cap," which
she believes the men even would find a great comfort. This is a
simple, close-fitting cap, made of two thicknesses of coarse toweling.
The head is wet with cold water, and the cap wet in the same, wrung
out, and placed on the head.
Mrs. Baker would have the dress neat and clean, and so trimmed
that the lady apiarist would ever be ready to greet her brother or
sister apiarists. In such a dress there is no danger of stings, and with
it there is that show of neatness and taste, without which no pursuit
could attract the attention, or at least the patronage, of our refined
women.

TO QUIET BEES.
 In harvest seasons, the bees, especially if Italians, can almost
always be handled without their showing resentment. But at other
times, and whenever they object to necessary familiarity, we have
only to cause them to fill with honey to render them harmless, unless
we pinch them. This can be done by closing the hive so that the
bees cannot get out, and then rapping on the hive for four or five
minutes. Those within will fill with honey, those without will be tamed
by surprise, and all will be quiet. Sprinkling the bees with sweetened
water will also tend to render them amiable, and will make them
more ready to unite, to receive a queen, and less apt to sting. Still
another method, more convenient, is to smoke the bees. A little
smoke blown among the bees will scarcely ever fail to quiet them,
though I have known black bees in autumn, to be very slow to yield.
Dry cotton cloth, closely wound and sewed or tied, or better, pieces
of dry, rotten wood, are excellent for the purpose of smoking. These
are easily handled, and will burn for a long time. But best of all is a

BELLOWS-SMOKER.
This is a tin tube attached to a bellows. Cloth or rotten wood can
be burned in the tube, and will remain burning a long time. The
smoke can be directed at pleasure, the bellows easily worked, and
the smoker used without any disagreeable effects or danger from
fire. It can be got from any dealer in bee apparatus, and only costs
from $1.25 to $2.00. I most heartily recommend it to all.
There are two smokers in use, which I have found very valuable,
and both of which are worthy of recommendation.

THE QUINBY SMOKER.

This smoker (Fig, 63, a) was a gift to bee-keepers by the late Mr.
Quinby, and not patented; though I supposed it was, and so stated in
a former edition of this work. Though a similar device had been
previously used in Europe, without doubt Mr. Quinby was not aware
of the fact, and as he was the person to bring it to the notice of bee-
keepers, and to make it so perfect as to challenge the attention and
win the favor of apiarists instanter, he is certainly worthy of great
praise, and deserving of hearty gratitude. This smoker, until a better
one appeared, was a very valuable and desirable instrument. Its
faults were, lack of strength, too small a fire-tube, too little draft when
not in use, so that the fire would go out, and too great liability to fall
over on the side, when the fire was sure to be extinguished. Many of
these defects, however, have been corrected, and other
improvements made in a new smoker, called the Improved Quinby
(Fig, 63, b).

Fig. 63.

THE BINGHAM SMOKER.

This smoker (Fig, 64) not only meets all the requirements, which
are wanting in the old Quinby smoker, but shows by its whole
construction, that it has not only as a whole, but in every part, been
subject to the severest test, and the closest, thought and study.
 Fig. 64.

At first sight this seems an improved copy of Mr. Quinby's

smoker, and so I first thought, though I only saw it in Mr. Bingham's
hand at a Convention. I have since used it, examined it in every part,
and have to say that it is not a Quinby smoker. The bellows, the
valve, the cut-off, and even the form, are all peculiar. The special
point to be commended, and, I suppose, the only one patentable, is
the cut-off between the bellows and fire-tube, so that the fire seldom
goes out, while even hard-wood, as suggested by the inventor, forms
an excellent and ever-ready fuel. The valve for the entrance of air to
the bellows, permits rapid work, the spring is of the best clock-spring
material, the leather perfect, not split sheep-skin, while the whole
construction of the bellows, and the plan of the fire-screen and cut-
off draft, show much thought and ingenuity. I am thus full in this
description, that I may not only benefit my readers, all of whom will
want a smoker, but also out of gratitude to Mr. Bingham, who has
conferred such a favor on American apiarists. There are three sizes,
which may be bought for $1.00, $1.50 and $1.75, respectively,
including postage.
Mr. Bingham, to protect himself, and preserve the quality of his
invention, has procured a patent. This, provided he has only
patented his own invention, is certainly his right, which I think
honesty requires us all to respect. Like Mr. Langstroth, he has given
us a valuable instrument; let us see that he is not defrauded out of
the justly earned reward for his invention.
 Brother apiarists, let us cease this unjust clamor against patents
and patentees. If a man procures a patent on a worthless thing, let
him alone, and where is the damage? If a man procures a patent on
a valuable and desirable invention, then buy it, or pay for the right to
make it, and thus keep the Eighth and Tenth Commandments
(Exodus, 20th chap., 8th and 10th verses). Let us never buy an
article unless we know it is valuable and desirable for us, no matter
how stoutly importuned; but for honesty's sake, and that we may
encourage more inventions, let us respect a man's patent as we
would any other property. If we are in doubt as to the correctness of
some person's claim, let us not be forced to pay a bonus, but first
write to some candid editor or other authority, and if we find a man
has a right to the article, then pay as we would any other debt. I
should be very suspicious of any man's honesty who was not willing
to respect such rights.

TO SMOKE BEES.
Approach the hive, blow a little smoke in at the entrance, then
open from above, and blow in smoke as required. If at any time the
bees seem irritable, a few puffs from the smoker will subdue them.
Thus, any person may handle his bees with perfect freedom and
safety. If at any time the fire-chamber and escape-pipe become filled
with soot, they can easily be cleaned by revolving an iron or hard-
wood stick inside of them.

TO CURE STINGS.
In case a person is stung, he should step back a little for a
moment, as the pungent odor of the venom is likely to anger the
bees and induce further stinging. The sting should be withdrawn, and
if the pain is such as to prove troublesome, apply a little ammonia.
The venom is an acid, and is neutralized by the alkali. Pressing over
the sting with the barrel of a watch-key is also said to be of some use
in staying the progress of the poison in the circulation of the blood. In
case horses are badly stung, as sometimes happens, they should be
taken as speedily as possible into a barn (a man, too, may escape
angry bees by entering a building), where the bees will seldom
follow, then wash the horses in soda water, and cover with blankets
wet in cold water.

THE SWEAT THEORY.

It is often stated that sweaty horses and people are obnoxious to
the bees, and hence, almost sure targets for their barbed arrows. In
warm weather I perspire most profusely, yet am scarcely ever stung,
since I have learned to control my nerves. I once kept my bees in the
front yard—they looked beautiful on the green lawn—within two rods
of a main thoroughfare, and not infrequently let my horse, covered
with sweat upon my return from a drive, crop the grass, while cooling
off, right in the same yard. Of course, there was some danger, but I
never knew my horse to get stung. Why, then, the theory? May not
the more frequent stings be consequent upon the warm, nervous
condition of the individual? The man is more ready to strike and jerk,
the horse to stamp and switch. The switching of the horse's tail, like
the whisker trap of a full beard, will anger even a good-natured bee. I
should dread the motions more than the sweat, though it may be true
that there is a peculiarity in the odor from either the sensible or
insensible perspiration of some persons, that angers the bees and
provokes the use of their terrible weapons.
 CHAPTER XIV.
COMB FOUNDATION.

Fig. 65.

Every apiarist of experience knows that empty combs in frames,

comb-guides in the sections, to tempt the bees and to insure the
proper position of the full combs, in fact, combs of almost any kind or
shape, are of great importance. So every skillful apiarist is very
careful to save all drone-comb that is cut out of the brood-chamber—
where it is worse than useless, as it brings with it myriads of those
useless gormands, the drones—to kill the eggs, remove the brood,
or extract the honey, and to transfer it to the sections. He is equally
careful to keep all his worker-comb, so long as the cells are of proper
size to domicile full-sized larvæ, and never to sell any comb, or even
comb-honey, unless a much greater price makes it desirable.
No wonder, then, if comb is so desirable, that German thought
and Yankee ingenuity have devised means of giving the bees at
least a start in this important, yet expensive work of comb-building,
and hence the origin of another great aid to the apiarist—comb
foundation (Fig, 65).

HISTORY.
For more than twenty years the Germans have used impressed
sheets of wax as a foundation for comb, as it was first made by Herr
Mehring, in 1857. These sheets are four or five times as thick as the
partition at the centre of natural comb, which is very thin, only 1-180
of an inch thick. This is pressed between metal plates so accurately
formed that the wax receives rhomboidal impressions which are a
fac simile of the basal wall or partition between the opposite cells of
natural comb. The thickness of this sheet is no objection, as it is
found that the bees almost always thin it down to the natural
thickness, and probably use the shavings to form the walls.

AMERICAN FOUNDATION.
Mr. Wagner secured a patent on foundation in 1861, but as the
article was already in use in Germany, the patent was, as we
understand, of no legal value, and certainly, as it did nothing to bring
this desirable article into use, it had no virtual value. Mr. Wagner was
also the first to suggest the idea of rollers. In Langstroth's work,
edition of 1859, p. 373, occurs the following, in reference to printing
or stamping combs: "Mr. Wagner suggests forming these outlines
with a simple instrument somewhat like a wheel cake cutter. When a
large number are to be made, a machine might easily be constructed
which would stamp them with great rapidity." In 1866, the King
Brothers, of New York, in accordance with the above suggestion,
invented the first machine with rollers, the product of which they tried
but failed to get patented. These stamped rollers were less than two
inches long. This machine was useless, and failed to bring
foundation into general use.
In 1874, Mr. Frederick Weiss, a poor German, invented the
machine which brought the foundation into general use. His machine
had lengthened rollers—they being six inches long—and shallow
grooves between the pyramidal projections, so that there was a very
shallow cell raised from the basal impression as left by the German
plates. This was the machine on which was made the beautiful and
practical foundation sent out by "John Long," in 1874 and 1875, and
which proved to the American apiarists that foundation machines,
and foundation, too, were to be a success. I used some of this early
foundation, and have been no more successful with that made by the
machines of to-day. To Frederick Weiss, then, are Americans and the
world indebted for this invaluable aid to the apiarist. Yet, the poor old
man has, I fear, received very meager profits from this great
invention, while some writers ignore his services entirely, not
granting him the poor meed of the honor. Since that time many
machines have been made, without even a thank you, as I believe,
to this old man, Weiss. Does not this show that patents, or
something—a higher morality, if you please—is necessary, that men
may secure justice? True, faulty foundation, and faulty machines
were already in use, but it was the inventive skill of Mr. Weiss that
made foundation cheap and excellent, and thus popularized it with
the American apiarists.

Fig. 66.

These Weiss machines turn out the comb-foundation not only of

exquisite mold, but with such rapidity that it can be made cheap and
practicable. Heretofore these machines have been sold at an
enormous profit. Last November, 1877, I expostulated with one of
the manufacturers of American machines, because of the high price,
saying, as I looked at one of the machines: These ought to be sold
for thirty or forty dollars, instead of one hundred dollars. He replied
that such machines—with rollers, not plates—that gave the
foundation the exact figure of natural comb, were only made, he
thought, by the person who made his machines, and thus convinced
me that said person should be rewarded, amply rewarded, for his
invention. But as I have since learned that this is only the Weiss
machine, and does no more perfect work, I now think Mr. Weiss
should receive the super-extra profits. Even with machines at one
hundred dollars, foundation was profitable, as I with many others
have found. But with the present price—forty dollars, which I think,
judging from the simplicity of the machine, advertised at that price
(Fig, 66), must be reduced still lower—we can hardly conceive what
an immense business this is soon to become.

HOW FOUNDATION IS MADE.

The process of making the foundation is very simple. Thin sheets
of wax, as thin as is consistent with strength, are simply passed
between the rollers, which are so made as to stamp worker or drone
foundation, as may be desired. The rollers are well covered with
starch-water to secure against adhesion. Two men can roll out about
four hundred pounds per day.

Fig. 67.

TO SECURE THE WAX SHEETS.

To make the thin sheets of wax, Mr. A. I. Root takes sheets or
plates of galvanized iron with a wooden handle. These are cooled by
dipping in ice-water, and then are dipped two, or three times if the
wax is very hot, in the melted wax, which is maintained at the proper
temperature by keeping it in a double-walled vessel, with hot water in
the outer chamber. Such a boiler, too, prevents burning of the wax,
which would ruin it, while it is being melted. After dipping the plates
in the wax, they are again dipped, when dripping has ceased, into
the cold water, after which the sheets of wax are cleaved off, the
plates brushed, wiped, cooled, and dipped again. The boiler used in
melting the wax has the gate with a fine wire sieve attached near the
top, so that the wax as it is drawn off into the second boiler, will be
thoroughly cleansed. Mr. Root states that two men and a boy will
thus make four hundred pounds of wax sheets in a day.
Others use wooden plates on which to mold the sheets, while the
Hetherington brothers prefer, and are very successful with a wooden
cylinder, which is made to revolve in the melted wax, and is so
hinged, that it can be speedily raised above or lowered into the
liquid.
For cutting foundation, nothing is so admirable as the Carlin
cutter (Fig, 67, a), which is like the wheel glass-cutters sold in the
shops, except that a larger wheel of tin takes the place of the one of
hardened steel. Mr. A. I. Root has suggested a grooved board (Fig.
67, b) to go with the above, the distance between the grooves being
equal to the desired width of the strips of comb foundation to be cut.

USE OF FOUNDATION.
I have used foundation, as have many other more extensive
apiarists, with perfect success in the section-boxes. The bees have
so thinned it that even epicures could not tell comb-honey with such
foundation, from that wholly made by the bees. Yet, I forbear
recommending it for such use. When such men as Hetherington,
Moore, Ellwood, and L. C. Root, protest against a course, it is well to
pause before we adopt it; so, while I have used foundation, I think
with some small advantage in sections and boxes for three years, I
shall still pronounce against it.
It will not be well to have the word artificial hitched on to our
comb-honey. I think it exceedingly wise to maintain inviolate in the
public mind the idea that comb-honey is par excellence, a natural
product. And as Captain Hetherington aptly suggests, this argument
is all the more weighty, in view of the filthy condition of much of our
commercial beeswax.
Again, our bees may not always thin the foundation, and we risk
our reputation in selling it in comb-honey, and an unquestioned
reputation is too valuable to be endangered in this way, especially as
in these days of adulteration, we may not know how much paraffine,
etc., there is in our foundation, unless we make it ourselves.
Lastly, there is no great advantage in its use in the sections, as
drone-comb is better, and with caution and care this can be secured
in ample quantities to furnish very generous starters for all our
sections. This will readily adhere, if the edge be dipped into melted
beeswax, and applied to the sections.
If any one should still be disposed to make such use of
foundation, they should only purchase of very reliable parties, that
they may be sure to use only such wax as is genuine, yellow, clean,
and certainly unmixed with paraffine, or any of the commercial
products which were first used to adulterate the wax. Only pure,
clean, unbleached wax should be used in making foundation. We
should be very careful not to put on the market any comb-honey
where the foundation had not been properly thinned by the bees.
Perhaps a very fine needle would enable one to determine this point
without injury to the honey.
But the most promising use of foundation, to which there can be
no objection, is in the brood-chamber. It is astonishing to see how
rapidly the bees will extend the cells, and how readily the queen will
stock them with eggs if of the right size, five cells to the inch. The
foundation should always be the right size either for worker or drone-
comb. Of course the latter size would never be used in the brood-
chamber. The advantage of foundation is, first, to insure worker-
comb, and thus worker-brood, and second, to furnish wax, so that
the bees may be free to gather honey. We proved in our apiary the
past two seasons, that by use of foundation, and a little care in
pruning out the drone-comb, we could limit or even exclude drones
from our hives, and we have but to examine the capacious and
constantly crowded stomachs of these idlers, to appreciate the
advantage of such a course. Bees may occasionally tear down
worker-cells and build drone-cells in their place; but such action, I
believe, is not sufficiently extensive to ever cause anxiety. I am also
certain that bees that have to secrete wax to form comb, do much
less gathering. Wax secretion seems voluntary, and when rapid
seems to require quiet and great consumption of food. If we make
two artificial colonies equally strong, supply the one with combs, and
withhold them from the other, we will find that this last sends much
fewer bees to the fields, while all the bees are more or less engaged
in wax secretion. Thus the other colony gains much more rapidly in
honey, first, because more bees are storing; second, because less
food is consumed. This is undoubtedly the reason why extracted-
honey can be secured in far greater abundance than can comb-
honey.
The foundation if used the full depth of the frame, stretches so
that many cells are so enlarged as to be used for drone-brood. This
demands, if we use the sheets unstrengthened, that they only be
used as guides, not reaching more than one-third of the depth of the
frame. Strips not less than four inches wide will not sag to do any
harm. The foundation, too, should not quite reach the sides of the
frame, as by expansion it is liable to warp and bend. Captain J. E.
Hetherington has invented a cure for this stretching and warping, by
strengthening the foundation. To do this, he runs several fine copper
wires into the foundation as it passes through the machine.
I understand, too, that Mr. M. Metcalf, of this State, has a similar
device now being patented.
This is a valuable suggestion, as it permits full-sized sheets of
foundation to be inserted in the frames. I presume that very soon all
worker-foundation will contain such wires.

TO FASTEN THE FOUNDATION.

In the thin sections, the foundation can best be fastened by use
of the melted wax. To accomplish this, I have used a block made
thus: Saw a fifteen-sixteenths inch board so that it will just exactly fill
a section. Screw this to a second board, which is one-half inch
broader each way, so that the larger under board will project one-
quarter of an inch each side the top board. Now set the section over
the top board, place the foundation, cut a trifle shorter than the inside
of the section, within, close to the top and one side of the section,
and cause it to adhere by running on a little of the melted wax,
which, by use of a kerosene lamp or stove, may be kept melted. If
the basin is double-walled, with water in the outer chamber and wax
in the inner, it is much safer, as then the wax will never burn.
If the tops of the sections are thick, they may be grooved, and by
crowding the foundation into the groove, and, if necessary, pressing
it with a thin wedge, it will be securely held.

Fig. 68.

This last method will work nicely in case of fastening into the
brood-frames. But I have found that I could fasten them rapidly and
very securely by simply pressing them against the rectangular
projection from the top-bar already described (page 134). In this
case a block (Fig, 68, a) should reach up into the frame from the side
which is nearest to the rectangular projection—it will be remembered
that the projection (Fig, 36) is a little to one side of the centre of the
top-bar, so that the foundation shall hang exactly in the centre—so
far that its upper surface would be exactly level with the upper
surface of the rectangular projection. This block, like the one
described above, has shoulders (Fig, 68, f), so that it will always
reach just the proper distance into the frame. It is also rabbeted at
the edge where the projection of the top-bar of the frame will rest,
(Fig, 68, b), so that the projection has a solid support, and will not
split off with pressure. We now set our frame on this block, lay on our
foundation, cut the size we desire, which, unless strengthened, will
be as long as the frame, and about four inches wide. The foundation
will rest firmly on the projection and block, and touch the top-bar, at
every point. We now take a board as thick as the projection is deep,
and as wide (Fig, 69, d) as the frame is long, which may be trimmed
off, so as to have a convenient handle (Fig. 69, e), and by wetting
the edge of this (Fig. 69, d) either in water, or, better, starch-water,
and pressing with it on the foundation above the projection, the
foundation will be made to adhere firmly to the latter, when the frame
may be raised with the block, taken off, and another fastened as
before. I have practiced this plan for two years, and have had
admirable success. I have very rarely known the foundation to drop,
though it must be remembered that our hives are shaded, and our
frames small.

Fig. 69.

The above methods are successful, but probably will receive

valuable modifications at the hands of the ingenius apiarists of our
land. Study in this direction will unquestionably pay, as the use of
this material is going to be very extensive, and any improvements
will be hailed with joy by the bee-keeping fraternity.

SAVE THE WAX.

As foundation is becoming so popular, and is destined to come
into general use, it behooves us all to be very careful that no old
comb goes to waste. Soiled drone-comb, old, worthless worker-
comb, and all fragments that cannot be used in the hives, together
with cappings, after the honey is drained out through a coarse bag or
colander—which process may be hastened by a moderate heat, not
sufficient to melt the wax, and frequent stirring—should be melted,
cleansed, and molded into cakes of wax, soon to be again stamped,
not by the bees, but by wondrous art.

METHODS.

A slow and wasteful method is to melt in a vessel of heated

water, and to purify by turning off the top, or allowing to cool, when
the impurities at the bottom are scraped off, and the process
repeated till all impurities are eliminated.
A better method to separate the wax is to put it into a strong,
rather coarse bag, then sink this in water and boil. At intervals the
comb in the bag should be pressed and stirred. The wax will collect
on top of the water.
To prevent the bag from burning, it should be kept from touching
the bottom of the vessel by inverting a basin in the bottom of the
latter, or else by using a double-walled vessel. The process should
be repeated till the wax is perfectly cleansed.
But, as wax is to become so important, and as the above
methods are slow, wasteful, and apt to give a poor quality of wax,
specialists, and even amateurs who keep as many as ten or twenty
colonies of bees, may well procure a wax extractor (Fig, 70). This is
also a foreign invention, the first being made by Prof. Gerster, of
Berne, Switzerland. These cost from five to seven dollars, are made
of tin, are very convenient and admirable, and can be procured of
any dealer in apiarian supplies.
 Fig. 70.

By this invention, all the wax, even of the oldest combs, can be
secured, in beautiful condition, and as it is perfectly neat, there is no
danger of provoking the "best woman in the world," as we are in
danger of doing by use of either of the above methods—for what is
more untidy and perplexing than to have wax boil over on the stove,
and perhaps get on to the floor, and be generally scattered about.
All pieces of comb should be put into a close box, and if any
larvæ are in it, the comb should be melted so frequently that it would
not smell badly. By taking pains, both in collecting and melting, the
apiarist will be surprised at the close of the season, as he views his
numerous and beautiful cakes of comb, and rejoice as bethinks how
little trouble it has all cost.