writes:
> My interpretation of the classicals' (Smith, Marx, etc.) view of the
> words "supply" and "demand" is as follows:
>
> (1) the idea that as price rises, quantity supplied rises and quantity
> demanded falls was not foreign to the classicals (as defined above).
> However, as far as I can tell, this was seen as an empirical propo-
> sition rather than as a theoretical result (as with Walrasian
> economics). Classical economists never made assumptions of perfect
> markets, perfect information, etc., since they were much more
> empirically-oriented than (say) modern Walrasians.
>
> (2) Smith used the word "demand" in a way that confuses us in the
> 20th century: "demand" seems to mean "the quantity demanded at the
> natural price" while "supply" means "the quantity supplied at the
> natural price." "disequilibrium" (i.e., where price does not
> equal the natural price) implies that "supply" does not equal
> "demand." At least for Marx, such disequilibrium was seen as
> normal. (I remember some metaphor about market prices revolving
> around prices of production the way the moon revolves around
> the earth.)
>
> Is this an accurate interpretation of the classical view?
> Please correct me if I am wrong.
I think you are right. (See my previous posting for the delay in answearing.)
Neri Salvadori
Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Pisa
Via Ridolfi 10, i56100 PISA (Italy)
FAX: (39)(50)598040
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: (39)(50)549215
