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
Sender:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:03:35 -0500
Reply-To:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
In-Reply-To:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
From:
Alan G Isaac <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (20 lines)
On 12/16/2012 4:46 PM, James C.W. Ahiakpor wrote to Michael:
> Surely, the fact even Petty wrote a fallacious argument doesn't turn such fallacy into a logically consistent statement.



What exactly is Petty's "fallacious argument" here?

Petty argues that the state should employ those who are unemployed,
because the cost of their maintenance will in any case be born by
society, and if employed they will at least maintain the custom
of work until they can find better employment.  However even though
this particular benefit would follow even from unproductive employment,
Petty argues that greater benefit that would derive from employing
them in the production of public works.

In short, Petty recognizes that that habit of working for pay is
depreciable human capital.

Alan Isaac

ATOM RSS1 RSS2