Re: Re: Marshall
Equilibrium might have been a central concept with Marshall but he was aware that there might not be one under certain cost conditions. Telser says of Marshall: "This conclusion, together with Marshall's well-known statement that a seller might not lower his price 'for fear of spoiling the market' is strong evidence of his sophisticated comprehension of the nature of a competitive equilibrium." (p. 53 of A Theory of efficient cooperation and competition) Jim Devine wrote: > a very interesting post! > > Ted Winslow writes: > These influences show up in a number of essential > ways in Marshall's economics. For instance, Marshall takes a "dialectical" > view of social interdependence. This underpins his conception of "caeteris > paribus" and his use of the term "normal".< > > I don't get how concepts like "ceteris paribus" and "normal" jibe with > dialectics, which involve a process in which ceteris is never paribus and > today's "normal" is always different from yesterday's. How does equilibrium > (which seems a central concept to Marshall) fit in with dialectics? > > later on: >In another essay, "The Future of the Working Classes" (Memorials > pp. 109-118), he sets out the conditions which would be required for all > persons to develop into "gentlemen" (his term for Marx's idea of the > "universally developed individual" - a term suggestive of the fact that, in > contrast to Marx, Marshall's version of the idea was not free of sexism).< > > also notice that Marshall implies that disalienation involves workers > becoming like a gentleperson, while Marx would see the gentry as themselves > alienated (in a different way than workers, natch). > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine/JDevine.html
Re: Re: Marshall
Jim Devine understands what Marshall was about. Yes, he wanted labor to improve, but improvement meant becoming more middle-class. Keynes, Marshall, and Smith all had a similar vision of labor becoming assimilated into the middle-class. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Marshall
Jim asked > > I don't get how concepts like "ceteris paribus" and "normal" jibe with > dialectics, which involve a process in which ceteris is never paribus and > today's "normal" is always different from yesterday's. How does equilibrium > (which seems a central concept to Marshall) fit in with dialectics? Like Marx (e.g. in the sixth thesis on Feuerbach), Marshall treats the human "essence" as the outcome of internal relations. This is linked to his idea of *caeteris paribus* through the assumption (also found in Hegel and Marx) that these relations are so constituted that "abstraction" from some of them is possible for some purposes. This is so because relations have differing degrees of stability. The more stable a particular set of relations (e.g family and work relations) the more possible it is to "abstract" from the possibility of changes in them. This is reflected in Marshall's treatment of time. The shorter the distance into the future of the consequences with which the analysis is concerned the more possible it is to abstract in this way. Here is a statement of the central point made as a criticism of "Ricardo and his followers". Notice the reference to Goethe and Hegel. "For the sake of simplicity of argument, Ricardo and his followers often spoke as though they regarded man as a constant quantity, and they never gave themselves enough trouble to study his variations. The people whom they knew most intimately were city men; and they sometimes expressed themselves so carelessly as almost to imply that other Englishmen were very much like those whom they knew in the city. ... As the [19th] century wore on ... people were getting clearer ideas as to the nature of organic growth. They were learning that if the subject-matter of a science passes through different stages of development, the laws which apply to one stage will seldom apply without modification to others; the laws of the science must have a development corresponding to that of the things of which they treat. The influence of this new notion gradually spread to the sciences which relate to man; and showed itself in the works of Goethe, Hegel, Comte and others. ... Economics has shared in the general movement; and is getting to pay every year a greater attention to the pliability of human nature, and to the way in which the character of man affects and is affected by the prevalent methods of the production, distribution and consumption of wealth." Principles, Variorum ed., vol. 1, pp. 762-764) The "pliability of human nature" means that, as in Marx, what is "normal" in the way of economic motivation and behaviour is treated as changing with changes in "the prevalent methods of the production, distribution and consumption of wealth". Keynes makes this the key to understanding Marshall's approach to method. Notice Marshall's reference to "Socialists" in the passage Keynes quotes. "Marshall ... arrived very early at the point of view that the bare bones of economic theory are not worth much in themselves and do not carry one far in the direction of useful, practical conclusions. The whole point lies in applying them to the interpretation of current economic life. This requires a profound knowledge of the actual facts of industry and trade. But these and the relation of individual men to them are constantly and rapidly changing. Some extracts from his Inaugural Lecture at Cambridge will indicate his position: "The change that has been made in the point of view of Economics by the present generation is due to the discovery that man himself is in a great measure a creature of circumstances and changes with them. The chief fault in English economists at the beginning of the century was not that they ignored history and statistics, but that they regarded man as so to speak a constant quantity, and gave themselves little trouble to study his variations. They therefore attributed to the forces of supply and demand a much more mechanical and regular action than they actually have. Their most vital fault was that they did not see how liable to change are the habits and institutions of industry. But the Socialists were men who had felt intensely, and who knew something about the hidden springs of human action of which the economists took no account. Buried among their wild rhapsodies there were shrewd observations and pregnant suggestions from which philosophers and economists had much to learn. Among the bad results of the narrowness of the work of English economists early in the century, perhaps the most unfortunate was the opportunity which it gave to sciolists to quote and misapply economic dogmas. Ricardo and his chief followers did not make clear to others, it was not even quite clear to themselves, that what they were building up was not universal truth, but machinery of universal application in the discovery of a certain class of truths. While attributing high and transcendent universality to the central scheme of
Re: Re: Re: Marshall
As far as Marshall's politics are concerned. He was firmly in the British liberal tradition of charity towards his social inferiors. And resented it when workers spoke for themselves. As far as dialectics and Marshall are concerned. In a sense there is a dialectic in Marshall. He is one of the few economists of his time who took seriously the interaction of supply and demand. Most of his contemporaries tried to reduce everything to subjective utility evaluations. And if supply was considered it was a static given upon which demand acted. Rod Michael Perelman wrote: > Jim Devine understands what Marshall was about. Yes, he wanted labor to improve, > but improvement meant becoming more middle-class. Keynes, Marshall, and Smith > all had a similar vision of labor becoming assimilated into the middle-class. > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Marshall/Martial Plan
Part of the denazification was to bring Nazis to the US to help in the Cold War. I doubt that we will bring too many of SH's people here. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Marshall/Martial Plan
Bill Lear wrote: Krugman can be proud of his efforts to shed some truth on the mendacious and militant Bush regime, but he should remember that the roots of the current phase of our empire were firmly and consciously put in place beginning with our reconstruction of a postwar world order that would serve the needs of U.S. investors first, no matter the consequences for democracy. Yeah, but it's important to remember that Western Europe was being reconstructed so serve as the junior partners of empire, whereas Iraq is conceived of as a vassal state. And if they could, the Bush admin would probably prefer to treat Afghanistan like the burned-out reactor at Chernobyl, buried in concrete. But they can't quite do that. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Marshall
Michael has urged looking at the Greek meaning of economic to understand the meaning of political economy. We should also look at the Greek root of politics. It derives from polis. And doesn't necessarily carry the meanings inherent in the modern word political. Rod -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: Marshall
>As far as dialectics and Marshall are concerned. In a sense there is a >dialectic in Marshall. He is one of the few economists of his time who >took seriously the interaction of supply and demand. Most of his >contemporaries tried to reduce everything to subjective utility >evaluations. And if supply was considered it was a static given upon which >demand acted. Marshall's conceptions of S&D are better than what shows up in textbooks, in the sense that he distinguishes between the market period, the short run, etc. But as I understand him (as a total amateur in the histothought biz), S and D start being completely separate from each other and then interact. In a dialectical perspective, they would be seen as parts of a unified system, internally related. I guess that's the perspective of general equilibrium, but of course, GE rejects dynamics of any real-world sort. BTW, pen-l's Brad DeLong has an op-ed piece in the Opinion section of today's L.A. TIMES on anti-trust & Microsoft (at http://www.latimes.com/print/opinion/2409/t33200.html, a web-address that will expire soon). I don't know enough about those subjects to comment. The first two paragraphs follow: Is Big Bad? Antitrust law must constantly adapt to the changing nature of monopoly. But the economic effects of monopoly are shifting as well. Consider Microsoft. By J. BRADFORD DE LONG BERKELEY--Monday, Federal Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson found as a matter of law that Microsoft had violated the 110-year-old Sherman Antitrust Act. He will now begin the process of determining what remedy will be granted to repair the damage done by this illegal restraint of trade. It may be that this decision, shocking to the high-tech sector's stock-market valuation as it was, will wind up as a footnote. For, five years ago, Microsoft, with its dominance of desktop operating systems and productivity applications, was at the heart of America's high-tech economy. But today, because of the remarkable rate of change, the heart of the high-tech economy is the network. It is at least arguable that the key is now in the hands of physical-network companies like AT&T, data-delivery companies like Akamai Technologies, database companies like Oracle, Internet-access providers like America Online and the communities of open-source programmers who maintain and develop the Linux operating system and the Apache Web server. So what happens to Microsoft, specifically, is no longer as critical. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine/JDevine.html
Re: Re: Re: Marshall/Martial Plan
True. They might still have the receipts for U.S weaponry bought by the govt. of SH. Re: Re: Marshall/Martial Plan by Michael Perelman 22 February 2003 Part of the denazification was to bring Nazis to the US to help in the Cold War. I doubt that we will bring too many of SH's people here. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: Re: Re: Marshall/Martial Plan
H..Dont be too sure. If any bioweapons scientists rat on Hussein or make up stories they can be assured of employment in US labs and that they will not be harassed by inspectors.. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 10:35 AM Subject: [PEN-L:34968] Re: Re: Marshall/Martial Plan > Part of the denazification was to bring Nazis to the US to help in the > Cold War. I doubt that we will bring too many of SH's people here. > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
