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
MIME-Version:
1.0
Sender:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Nicola Giocoli <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 7 Feb 2011 06:36:07 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
base64
Reply-To:
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1 lines)
JBR makes a very good point in explaining why textbooks favor the Walrasian way of drawing the axes. Yet I am still more convinced of the alternative explanation, namely, that price adjustment is much easier to deal with (thanks to the auctioneer it may take place in logic, not real, time, so it raises no issues of real dynamics), while quantity adjustment would be a lot trickier as it necessarily involves real time events.
Anyway, is anybody able to check what Samuelson's Principles (first edition) said on the matter? That textbook really set a universal standard.  
Nicola Giocoli
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device from WIND

ATOM RSS1 RSS2