I think that socialist meant something different -- that wanted a market system that elevated workers, meaning that they would become more bourgoise -- well behaved, respectful ...
On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 02:25:46PM -0400, Shane Mage wrote: > Jim Devine wrote: > > >of course, for many economists, the word "socialist" simply means the > >rejection of _laissez-faire_. They live in a world where the choice is > >between government and "the market." > > I don't think this holds for Marshall and Pigou (who, by the way, thought > of themselves as "classical" economists in the tradition of Adam Smith, > and were properly described that way by Keynes). Their "socialism," I > think, was based mainly on two grounds: their realization that the > monopolizing tendencies of modern capitalism undermine the basic > "social efficiency" rationale for free markets; and their common-sense > recognition of the declining marginal utility of income, from which it > necessarily follows that redistribution from rich to poor always tends > to improve the welfare of society as a whole. > > >On 10/27/05, Shane Mage wrote: > >> Marshall and Pigou claimed to be socialists. Robbins and Knight certainly > > > did not. I don't know about Baumol. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
