On Fri, 21 May 2004, James Green-Armytage wrote:
>
> Gervase asked for comments on this paragraph:
> >"The concept of cardinal utility suffers from the absence of an objective
> >measure of utility when comparing the utility gained from consumption of
> >a
> >particular good by one individual as
Brian,
--- Brian Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : >
> >> Well said. This argument goes back at least as far as the canonical
> >> work by Kenneth Arrow. In laying the axioms on which his conclusions
> >> lay, he argued that you can't compare utility _between_ people.
> >>
> >> I say otherwise
On May 22, 2004, at 9:54 AM, Kevin Venzke wrote:
--- Brian Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : >
Well said. This argument goes back at least as far as the canonical
work by Kenneth Arrow. In laying the axioms on which his conclusions
lay, he argued that you can't compare utility _between_ people.
Brian,
--- Brian Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : >
> Well said. This argument goes back at least as far as the canonical
> work by Kenneth Arrow. In laying the axioms on which his conclusions
> lay, he argued that you can't compare utility _between_ people.
>
> I say otherwise. We do impl
On May 21, 2004, at 4:07 PM, James Green-Armytage wrote:
Gervase asked for comments on this paragraph:
"The concept of cardinal utility suffers from the absence of an
objective
measure of utility when comparing the utility gained from consumption
of
a
particular good by one individual as opposed
Gervase asked for comments on this paragraph:
>"The concept of cardinal utility suffers from the absence of an objective
>measure of utility when comparing the utility gained from consumption of
>a
>particular good by one individual as opposed to another individual. For
>this reason, neoclassi
