Ricardo's Work as Viewed by Later Economists

1991 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth J. Arrow
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Stock Exchange ◽  
John Stuart Mill ◽  
Thomas De Quincey ◽  
Personal Traits ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
Great Mind ◽  
Thomas Malthus ◽  
David Ricardo

David Ricardo was a peaceful man, well liked and admired for both his intellectual and his personal traits by his colleagues and rivals whether on the Stock Exchange, in the nascent field of political economy, or among the members of Parliament. He could maintain personal friendship and wellbehaved exchange of ideas with someone as far removed from him in both religion and economic doctrine as Thomas Malthus. The intellectual strength of his written work could dominate the thought of such a great mind as that of John Stuart Mill and rouse the writer Thomas de Quincey from his opiumriddled state to renewed mental vigor.

scholarly journals Retrospectives Ricardo on Machinery

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Hollander
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Working Class ◽  
Technical Change ◽  
John Stuart Mill ◽  
The Third ◽  
Turn On ◽  
Technological Unemployment ◽  
The Subject ◽  
David Ricardo

We are currently experiencing an outpouring of concern both popular and professional regarding technological unemployment. I shall be discussing an apparent about-turn on the subject by David Ricardo (1772–1823), who at different times, even in different chapters of the same book, and, indeed, even at different places in the same chapter, seemed to be on both sides of the argument as to whether technological unemployment should be a matter for concern. In a chapter entitled “On Machinery,” added to the third edition of his Principles of Political Economy (1821), which comprises volume 1 of his Collected Works (1951–73), Ricardo announced that he had become concerned about the possibility, even likelihood, of technical change detrimental to labour’s interests. However, in the very same “On Machinery” chapter, Ricardo also outlined qualifications to show that there was little need for concern. Ricardo’s opposing messages are reflected in contrasting reactions to the chapter “On Machinery.” Some readers—including Thomas Robert Malthus and J. R. McCulloch—understood it as supporting working-class opposition to machinery. Others—including John Stuart Mill and Sir John Hicks—find therein the answer to such opposition

Progress and Poverty

2020 ◽  
pp. 75-102
Author(s):  
Christopher W. Calvo
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
American Exceptionalism ◽  
Cultural Attitudes ◽  
Thomas Malthus ◽  
Laissez Faire ◽  
Liberal Political Economy ◽  
Political Economic ◽  
David Ricardo

This chapter further illustrates the split between American and British liberal political economy by analyzing the antebellum treatment of Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo. Important distinctions are shown between American liberals on population, and theories of rent and wages. American exceptionalism was the primary intellectual impetus behind liberal America’s apostasy from British classicism. This chapter showcases the various forms of laissez-faire ideology that circulated in the domestic discourse, with special attention paid to, among others, J. D. B. De Bow, George Tucker, Henry Vethake, Jacob Cardozo, and Thomas Dew. American exceptionalism, combined with the influence of regional social, political, economic and cultural attitudes, shaped Americans’ understanding of British liberalism.

JOHN STUART MILL E OS FUNDAMENTOS MICROECONÔMICOS DA PRODUÇÃO

2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 133
Author(s):  
Joaquim Miguel Couto ◽  
Geisiane Michelle Silva
Keyword(s):  
John Stuart Mill ◽  
Thomas Malthus ◽  
David Ricardo

Os “Princípios de economia política” de John Stuart Mill lançou os fundamentos microeconômicos modernos da produção. Para ele, determinar as leis que regem a produção era o assunto mais importante da Economia Política. Depois de uma longa analise, concluiu que os fatores necessários à produção eram três: o capital, o trabalho e a terra. O autor ressaltou que o capital não era o dinheiro, mas o dinheiro poderia transformar-se em capital. O capital fornecia ferramentas, matérias-primas e pagava os trabalhadores utilizados no processo de produção. Dentre os três fatores de produção, o único que podia limitá-la era a terra, a qual não podia aumentar indefinidamente, pois sua quantidade e produtividade eram limitadas. As principais influências no pensamento de Mill foram David Ricardo, J. B. Say e Thomas Malthus.

scholarly journals El dilema de John Stuart Mill

2021 ◽  
pp. 89-108
Author(s):  
Cristián Larroulet Philippi
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Political Economy ◽  
A Priori ◽  
John Stuart Mill ◽  
Jel Classification ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Palabras Clave ◽  
Internal Contradiction ◽  
Empirical Point ◽  
David Ricardo

This paper discusses the idea that John Stuart Mill supported two intellectual positions which are considered to be contradictory. On one hand, he proposed a radical empiricist epistemology in his System of Logic. On the other hand, Mill defended David Ricardo’s Political Economy, fairly criticized in its time from an empirical point of view. This paper argues that there is no internal contradiction in Mill, as he believes that the method used in Political Economy (criticized for being a priori) is necessary because of the difficulties that rise due to the nature of the study object. Furthermore, Mill suggests that it is the only possible method that social sciences may use. Key words: J.S. Mill, economic methodology, epistemology. JEL Classification: B12, B41. Resumen: Este artículo discute la idea de que John Stuart Mill mantuvo dos posiciones intelectuales consideradas como contradictorias. Por un lado, él propuso una epistemología radicalmente empirista en su System of Logic. Por el otro, Mill defendió la Economía Política de David Ricardo, bastante criticada desde una perspectiva empírica en su momento. Este artículo argumenta que no hay contradicción interna en Mill, ya que él postula que el método usado por la Economía Política (criticado por su apriorismo) es necesario debido a las dificultades propias del objeto de estudio. Incluso, Mill sostiene que ese es el único método posible para las ciencias sociales. Palabras clave: J.S. Mill, metodología económica, epistemología. Clasificación JEL: B12, B41.

Geschichte des modernen ökonomischen Denkens

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toni Pierenkemper
Keyword(s):  
Karl Marx ◽  
Adam Smith ◽  
John Stuart Mill ◽  
Friedrich List ◽  
John Maynard Keynes ◽  
Milton Friedman ◽  
David Ricardo

Realökonomische Probleme haben zu allen Zeiten die Theorien der Ökonomie und ihrer großen Denker beeinflusst. Wichtige Themen der Ökonomie sind das gesamtwirtschaftliche Wachstum, Verteilungsprobleme, individuelle Nutzenmaximierung, Keynesianismus, Monetarismus – und ganz neue Ansätze wie Evolutorik, Spieltheorie oder Verhaltensökonomie, die ihr Potenzial noch beweisen müssen. Sie verbinden sich in der Moderne mit Namen von Ökonomen wie Adam Smith, Robert Malthus, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, Friedrich List, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes oder Milton Friedman. Oder die Betrachtung der Ökonomie verdichtet sich in Stichworten wie Marginalanalyse, Historische Schule, Neoklassik, Institutionalismus, Neue-Institutionenökonomik und Monetarismus – neuerdings auch Evolutorik, Verhaltensökonomik oder Spieltheorie. Für alle, die zur Ökonomie gründlich aufbereitetes und grundlegendes Überblickswissen mit Prüfungsrelevanz suchen.

scholarly journals Retrospectives: On the Genius Behind David Ricardo's 1817 Formulation of Comparative Advantage

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 227-240
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Bernhofen ◽  
John C. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Comparative Advantage ◽  
John Stuart Mill ◽  
Gains From Trade ◽  
200Th Anniversary ◽  
Analytical Results ◽  
Ricardian Model ◽  
Logical Sense

Last year marked the 200th anniversary of Ricardo’s famous “four numbers” paragraph on comparative advantage, which is one of the oldest analytical results in economics. Following the lead of James Mill (1821), these four numbers have been interpreted as unit labor coefficients. This interpretation has provided the basis for the development of the ‘Ricardian model’ from John Stuart Mill (1852) to Eaton and Kortum (2002). However, if we accept the labor unit interpretation of these numbers, Ricardo’s exposition in his 1817 Principles of Political Economy and Taxation makes little logical sense. Building on Sraffa’s (1930) interpretation of Ricardo’s numbers as labor embodied in trade, our discussion reveals the amazing simplicity and generality of Ricardo’s comparative advantage formulation and gains-from-trade logic.

scholarly journals Adam Smith’s concept of labour: value or measure?

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 152-165
Author(s):  
Adolfo Rodríguez Herrera
Keyword(s):  
Karl Marx ◽  
John Stuart Mill ◽  
Production Theory ◽  
Real Price ◽  
Cost Of Production ◽  
Theory Of Value ◽  
The One ◽  
The Cost ◽  
David Ricardo

Smith is considered the father of the labour theory of value developed by David Ricardo and Karl Marx and simultaneously of the cost-of-production theory of value developed by John Stuart Mill and Alfred Marshall. This polysemy is partly because Smith is developping the terminology to refer to value and measure of value, and often uses it with much imprecision. That has led to different interpretations about his position on these issues, most of them derived from an error of interpretation of Ricardo and Marx. This paper reviews the concepts developed by Smith to formulate his theory of value (value, real price and exchangeable value). Our interpretation of his texts on value does not coincide with what has traditionally been done. According to our interpretation, it would not be correct the criticism made by Ricardo and Marx on Smith’s position about the role of labour as measure of value. For these authors, Smith is not consistent in proposing that the value of a commodity is defined or measured as the amount of labour necessary to produce it and simultaneously as the amount of labour that can be purchased by this commodity. We try to show that for Smith the labour has a double role –as source and measure of value–, and that to it is due the confusion that generates his use of some terms: Smith proposes labour as a measure of value because he conceives it as a source of value. With this interpretation it becomes clear, paradoxically, that Smith holds a labour theory of value that substantially corresponds to the one later developed by Ricardo and Marx.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document