There are relations of co-existence (no period), and of sequence over
infinite time, or anything in between, so "long run" and "short run" are
just linguistic devices to avoid specificity. I see no purpose in crediting
them with anything more.
Mason Gaffney
-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Goodacre, Hugh
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 2:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] About some terms used in Cantillon's Essay
Also, I think I found the phrase all else equal in and English translation
of a 16th century Jesuits text. But I never managed to trace the original
Latin.
Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Aug 2013, at 22:07, "Van Den Berg, Richard"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear list members
>
> In the process of preparing a new edition of Richard Cantillon’s work, I
am comparing the various 18th century manuscript and print versions of his
writings. This is throwing up a large number of little puzzles. For three
of these (for now) I’d like to pick list members’ brains.
>
> 1. In the version as it appears in Postlethwayt’s Dictionary, I have come
across a couple of instances where the expression ‘in the long-run’ and ‘at
the long-run’ occurs. For one of these cases there is a direct counterpart
in one of the French manuscripts of the Essai in the phrase 'ŕ la longue'
('after a certain time'). I’d argue that the occurrence in the French
manuscript and the Postlethwayt text of identical phrases attests to their
authenticity, i.e., that Richard Cantillon wrote them. However, the French
print editions do not have the phrase. This is probably because the
(unknown) editor of the famous 1755 publication replaced it (with 'dans tous
les tems' ['at all times']).
>
> In both cases in the Postlethwayt version where the phrase ‘in/at the
long-run’ occurs, it denotes something like "once all relevant factors have
made their influence felt". In the context of Cantillon’s method of
reasoning the phrase carries interesting theoretical implications. My
question is whether anybody knows of any instances before the beginning of
the 1730s where the phrase ‘in the long-run’ (or ‘at the long-run’) is used
in an economic-theoretical context? I am less interested in other contexts,
because the phrase appears to have been somewhat common in everyday English
from the early 17th century onwards.
>
> 2. A similar query relates to the use of the term caeteris paribus. In the
Postlethwayt version it occurs with some frequency. In the French versions
(printed or manuscript) it doesn’t figure, although we do of course
encounter 'tout autres choses étant égales', which expresses the same idea.
I have come across one instance in Petty’s work where caeteris paribus is
used and one occurrence in Mandeville (the former being more likely than the
latter to have influenced Cantillon).
>
> Does anyone know of other uses of the clause in a theoretical context in
the economic literature up to 1730? Can anybody point me to good discussions
of the early uses of the clause?
>
> 3. Cantillon uses the term ‘altercations’ repeatedly, in both the English
and French versions, to refer to the process of bargaining in markets. This
word usage is peculiar since, as far as I have been able to establish, the
term 'altercations' was already used, in both languages, to described heated
or even violent disputes. But there is no real indication that Cantillon
sees market bargaining as a particularly discordant process. Can anyone shed
light as the possible reason for Cantillon’s singular use of the word
‘altercations’, possibly by reference to other authors who used it for the
same purpose?
>
> Please let me have any suggestions on or off list.
>
> Kind regards
> Richard van den Berg
>
> This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
> Security System.
>
|
