scholarly journals Limits to Growth Concepts in Classical Economics

Author(s):  
Khalid Saeed
1978 ◽  
Vol 33 (7) ◽  
pp. 701-703 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul C. Stern
Keyword(s):  

2006 ◽  
pp. 28-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Bashmakov

This article deals with the determination of future oil prices. The approach used is based on the evaluation of purchasing power limits and allows to put the limits to monopolistic price setting. Several important findings are formulated: going beyond the upper thresholds of purchasing power stipulates negative relationship between energy costs and GDP growth rates, and this brings the dynamics to energy demand to price elasticity. This approach is also based on what the author calls the economics of constants and variables, i.e. on the existence of very stable macroeconomic proportions, which may be observed throughout the whole period of statistical observations (over 200 years). It provides grounds for two conclusions. First, the upper limit of energy costs to the gross output ratio is determined by the least acceptable profitability. Second, the theoretical postulate on substantial production factors substitution used in the production functions theory may be incorrect. In reality, the change of the economy technological basis leads to the substitution of low quality production factor by the same factor with a higher quality. Application of this approach brings the basis for predicting oil prices for 2006-2008.


2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-123
Author(s):  
Farhad Rassekh

In the year 1749 Adam Smith conceived his theory of commercial liberty and David Hume laid the foundation of his monetary theory. These two intellectual developments, despite their brevity, heralded a paradigm shift in economic thinking. Smith expanded and promulgated his theory over the course of his scholarly career, culminating in the publication of The Wealth of Nations in 1776. Hume elaborated on the constituents of his monetary framework in several essays that were published in 1752. Although Smith and Hume devised their economic theories in 1749 independently, these theories complemented each other and to a considerable extent created the structure of classical economics.


1998 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-30
Author(s):  
Sohail Lnayatullah

This article is both a critique of ways of approaching the future and a presentation of scenarios of the Islamic world a generation ahead. The critique covers various global models, including The Club of Rome's classic Limits to Growth (L TG), 1 Mankind at the Turning Point (MTP), and World 2000, and other approaches to the understanding of the future. Drawing from poststructural theory, we ask: What is missing, who does the analysis privilege, and what epistemological frames or ways of knowing are accentuated, are made primary, by the models used? What can the Islamic world learn from these models? We attempt to go a step further than merely asking the Marxist class question of who benefits financially. For us, the issue is deeper. We are concerned with what knowledge frames and (more appropriately, from an Islamic per­spective) what civilizational frames are privileged, are considered more important. An appendix presents recommendations focused on making the Islamic urrunah more future oriented. However, global models are only one way of approaching or under­standing the future. There are other ways of approaching the study of the future from which can be derived specific assertions about issues, trends, and scenarios as to the likely and possible shape of the future. We also inquire into the utility of these models for better understanding the future of the Islamic ummah. We conclude with visions of the future of the ummah ...


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document