SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Pat Gunning)
Date:
Fri Mar 31 17:19:13 2006
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (55 lines)
----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
Sorry, Scott, if I was unclear. I did not mean to equate the theory of  
value in a general, or philosophical, sense with the subjective theory of  
value, which is only an economic theory of the relationship between  
money prices and costs. Unfortunately, perhaps, the economic theory  
uses words that have different meanings outside of the particular  
tradition within which the theory developed. I suspect that the reason  
for this is some ambiguity in the German language, which was carried  
over into English toward the end of the 19th century, when American  
economists began discussing the Austrian theory of Menger, Bohm  
Bawerk and Wieser.   
 
Regarding your question about the role of other influences on  
consumer preferences in subjective theory: 
 
The supplier-producer-entrepreneur, in the functional sense, has the  
task of appraising factors with regard to their capacity to satisfy  
consumer wants. So, yes there was a demand side influence. In fact,  
the subjective theory of value was sometimes expressed entirely in  
terms of opportunity costs, which gave the impression that _only_ the  
demand side had an influence. This impression was wrong, since it  
disregarded the part of the entrepreneur's function that appraises the  
_capacity_ of factors. See the Bohm Bawerk article listed below.   
 
Regarding advertising and marketing, subjective value theorists typically  
disregarded them. They were particularly reluctant to discuss  
advertising that is aimed in some measure at altering wants through its  
subliminal effect on decision-making. Similarly disregarded was  
deception. I think that these omissions reflect a primary concern with  
elucidating those characteristics of the "capitalist system" and human  
action under its conditions that either cause or are catalysts in the  
production of what most people regard as material wealth.   
 
Boehm-Bawerk, E.(1894a), "The Ultimate Standard of Value," Annals of the 
American Academy of Political and Social Science (September), in Shorter 
Classics of Eugen von Boehm-Bawerk, South Holland, Ill.: Libertarian 
Press, 1962. 
 
For two papers on the subjective theory of value, see: 
 
Gunning, J. Patrick.(1997)  "Ludwig von Mises's Transformation of the 
Austrian Theory of Value and Cost." History of Economics Review. 26 
(Summer) 
 
Gunning, J. Patrick. (1998) "Herbert J. Davenport's Transformation of 
the Austrian Theory of Value and Cost." In Malcolm Rutherford (ed.). The 
Economic Mind in America: Essays in the History of American Economics. 
London: Routledge. 
 
Pat Gunning 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask] 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2