Surreal illustration of a populist debate with a giant coin, symbolizing the clash between populism and economic expertise.

The Populist Playbook: How Economic Debates Shape Our World

Reese Marlowe in Politics & Policy June 2025 • 4 min read.

"Uncover the surprising history of populism vs. economic expertise and why these clashes still define our society."

In an era defined by rapid economic shifts and widespread skepticism toward established institutions, the tension between populism and economic expertise has resurfaced as a central theme in public discourse. We see echoes of past battles in today's headlines, where distrust of experts often clashes with data-driven analysis. Understanding this dynamic is crucial for anyone trying to navigate the complexities of modern society.

The late 19th century witnessed a similar conflict during the bimetallist controversy in the United States. This period, marked by economic instability and widespread social unrest, saw the rise of populism as a potent political force. Figures like William (Coin) Harvey challenged the authority of mainstream economists, advocating for policies aimed at benefiting ordinary citizens against the perceived elite.

At the heart of this historical clash were the debates between Harvey and J. Laurence Laughlin, a prominent economist and defender of monetary orthodoxy. These debates, both real and fictionalized, encapsulated the broader struggle between populist ideals and expert opinion. By examining this pivotal moment in economic history, we can gain valuable insights into the enduring relevance of these tensions today.

The "Little Financier" Takes on the Establishment

Surreal illustration of a populist debate with a giant coin, symbolizing the clash between populism and economic expertise.

Today, populists challenge economists and other experts globally, creating bewilderment and defensiveness. But this isn't new. The expertise of academic economists faced populist attacks in the U.S. during the bimetallist controversy of the 1890s. The People's Party (Populists) and the Democratic Party nominated William Jennings Bryan for President, advocating for free silver coinage against gold.

William Harvey's Coin's Financial School, a pro-bimetallism book, sold over a million copies. It depicted a young Coin lecturing at the Art Institute of Chicago, defeating pro-gold economists, bankers, and politicians in debate. Although many knew it was fiction, its message resonated widely. Indignant refutations appeared, but explaining bimetallism's flaws led to Irving Fisher's Appreciation and Interest.

Horace White's Coin's Financial Fool.
George Roberts's Coin at School in Finance.
Edward Wisner's Cash vs. Coin.
Jay Loring's Coin's Financial School Exposed and Closed.
Robert Rowell's The Mistakes of Coin.

One of Coin's targets, J. Laurence Laughlin, accepted Harvey's debate challenge. In a real debate, populist critique confronted monetary orthodoxy and academic expertise. Laughlin, founder of the University of Chicago's economics department and the Journal of Political Economy, faced a problematic claim to speak for economics as a whole. This showdown highlights enduring tensions between populist sentiment and economic authority.

Echoes of the Past, Lessons for the Future

The Laughlin-Harvey clash underscores the enduring tension between populism and economic expertise. While Harvey's attacks aimed to discredit Laughlin's authority, they ironically amplified his influence. By understanding this historical episode, we can better navigate today's debates, fostering informed dialogue between diverse perspectives. In a world grappling with complex economic challenges, bridging the gap between populist concerns and expert insights is crucial for building a more inclusive and prosperous future.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: 10.1080/07360932.2018.1451760, Alternate LINK

Title: Populism Versus Economic Expertise: J. Laurence Laughlin Debates William (Coin) Harvey

Subject: Economics and Econometrics

Journal: Forum for Social Economics

Publisher: Informa UK Limited

Authors: Constance André-Aigret, Robert W. Dimand

Published: 2018-04-03

Everything You Need To Know

What was the core disagreement between populists and economic experts during the bimetallist controversy?

The central disagreement during the bimetallist controversy revolved around monetary policy. Populists, like William (Coin) Harvey, advocated for the free coinage of silver (bimetallism) to increase the money supply and benefit ordinary citizens, particularly debtors. Mainstream economists, exemplified by J. Laurence Laughlin, defended the gold standard and monetary orthodoxy, believing it would maintain economic stability. The populists thought of silver as a way to ease the burden of debt for farmers and working-class individuals, while economists feared inflation and economic disruption.

How did William (Coin) Harvey challenge economic expertise during the bimetallist controversy?

William (Coin) Harvey challenged economic expertise through his widely popular book, Coin's Financial School. This book presented a fictionalized account of Harvey, as 'Coin,' lecturing at the Art Institute of Chicago and defeating pro-gold economists, bankers, and politicians in debates about bimetallism. While the book was fiction, its message resonated with a broad audience, discrediting economic experts and promoting populist views on monetary policy. This tactic of using a fictional narrative to convey economic arguments proved effective in swaying public opinion.

What was the significance of the debate between J. Laurence Laughlin and William (Coin) Harvey?

The debate between J. Laurence Laughlin and William (Coin) Harvey symbolized the larger conflict between populist sentiment and economic authority. Laughlin, a respected economist and founder of the University of Chicago's economics department, represented established economic expertise. Harvey, as a populist figure, challenged Laughlin's authority and advocated for policies favored by ordinary citizens. This showdown highlighted the enduring tensions between these two perspectives and underscored the difficulties in reconciling populist concerns with expert insights.

How did economists respond to William (Coin) Harvey's 'Coin's Financial School,' and what was the impact of these responses?

Economists responded to William (Coin) Harvey's Coin's Financial School with a series of critical rebuttals. Some of these rebuttals include Horace White's Coin's Financial Fool, George Roberts's Coin at School in Finance, Edward Wisner's Cash vs. Coin, Jay Loring's Coin's Financial School Exposed and Closed, and Robert Rowell's The Mistakes of Coin. While intended to expose the flaws in Harvey's arguments for bimetallism, these responses inadvertently amplified his influence. For example, Irving Fisher's attempt to explain the flaws of bimetallism led to his publication of Appreciation and Interest. This highlights how addressing populist arguments can sometimes increase their visibility and impact.

In what ways does the historical tension between populism and economic expertise, as seen in the Laughlin-Harvey clash, continue to be relevant today?

The historical tension between populism and economic expertise, exemplified by the Laughlin-Harvey clash, remains relevant in today's world due to the continued presence of economic shifts and distrust in established institutions. Populist movements still challenge the authority of economists and other experts globally, advocating for policies aimed at benefiting ordinary citizens against perceived elites. Understanding this historical dynamic helps us better navigate contemporary debates, fostering informed dialogue between diverse perspectives and bridging the gap between populist concerns and expert insights. Ignoring either perspective can lead to ineffective policies and further societal divisions.