SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Date:
Fri Mar 31 17:18:42 2006
Message-ID:
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Bill Williams)
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Ken Gordon, 
 
Emphasizes that 
" the theory of value - surely is ... than the core of our subject. Or at 
least appears to have been for its first three hundred years or so." 
 
And, I would fully agree.  And, as a critic I take seriously the notion 
that as Stigler said, the best criticism is to provide a better theory. 
 
The definition in physics of forces such as gravity seem to me to be 
similar to the definition of utility in economics.  But, the Newtonian 
system works rather well. While the principle of maximization in economics 
-- what ever it is that is being maximized -- generates some persistent 
anomalies-- such as the Giffen paradox.  And, the Giffen effect is not 
eliminated by a resort to a compensated demand function. 
 
When I propose that the principle of maximization can be replaced,  I am 
not at all proposing to abandon value theory-- quite the contrary. 
 
Bill Williams 
 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask] 
 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2