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] (Menno Rol)
Date:
Wed Apr 12 13:55:43 2006
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (23 lines)
Dear Brad,  
  
I learned most about this from Von Bohm-Bawerk's (Vbb's) treatment of   
Menger's subjective value theory in his 'Positive Theory of Capital' (Trans.   
Huncke and Sennholz (1959), of the German Positive Theorie des Kapitales,   
4th revised edition (1921)) Part III, Value and Price. This part of the famous   
study is based on the German 'Grundz=FCge der Theorie des Wirtschaftlichen  
G=FCterwerts', in: Conrads Jahrb=FCcher, n.F., XIIIter Band, pp.1-82 and 477-  
541, Jena: Gustav Fischer.  
  
The reason why this text fits your interest so well, I guess, is that it is written in
polemic style, comparing the alleged failures of the classical economists in explaining
market phenomena and the successes in doing this by Menger's explanatory scheme. From a
philosophy of science point of view, Vbb's
claims are a case of explanatory unification. From a history of economics   
point of view, they are a case that shows the character of the very shift you focus on
very well.
  
Yours.  
  
Menno Rol  
  

ATOM RSS1 RSS2