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:
Yukihiro Ikeda <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 27 Jan 2020 10:17:57 +0900
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (51 lines)
Irving Fisher: consumers poison themselves

Dear Members,

General equilibrium model based on preference is one thing, and the normative interpretation of  preference is another. In his theory of interest, Fisher does pay due attention to the short-sightedness of economic player, which goes back to Eugen von Boehm-Bawerk, who paved the way to the analysis of intertemporal resource allocation.

General equilibrium theorist is allowed to ask about the formation of preference and try to mold and improve it, if she (he) deems it necessary.

Perhaps it might be a tension, as Colin indicated, though...

All the best,

Yukihiro IKEDA

Department of Economics

Keio University

Colin Danby <[log in to unmask]>:

I'm trying to understand something about Irving Fisher.

Fisher the economist is regarded as a pioneering general equilibrium theorist.  Tobin terms his 1892 dissertation "a masterly exposition of Walrasian general equilibrium theory" and he seems to have worked from general equilibrium principles throughout his career, principles which place a large burden on consumer choice to guide production.

Fisher the social reformer contended that consumers choose to harm themselves.  He called alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine "poisons."  He also thinks people eat the wrong food, wear the wrong clothes, live in the wrong kinds of houses, pursue the wrong amusements, and work too hard.  Not *everyone* perhaps, but his 1915 _How to Live_ is pretty clear that most Americans make profoundly wrong choices.

I don't know that this is a disabling contradiction, but there is a certain tension here, no?  Has anyone written about this?

Thanks, Colin

___________________________________________________________________
Colin Danby
Professor, Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences
University of Washington, Bothell
Adjunct Professor, Gender, Women & Sexuality Studies
University of Washington, Seattle
(425) 352-5285
[log in to unmask]
The Known Economy: Romantics, Rationalists, and the Making of a World Scale
___________________________________________________________________

**********
Yukihiro Ikeda
Department of Economics
Keio University
Mita 2-15-45, Minato-ku
108-8345 Tokyo, Japan
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
HP: http://members3.jcom.home.ne.jp/cmenger/
**********

ATOM RSS1 RSS2