The paper presents a more complete theory of utility. In order to do so, the paper begins with Jon Von Neumann's original method of correspondences found in Theory of Games. Then by means of different correspondences between objects we define the entire economic game space as a pseudo-Euclidean space-time continuum. Using Green's method for ellipsoids of variable densities, we are then able to create a utility function which contains a removable hole discontinuity at the origin, and is continuous for returns bounded from negative one to infinity.
本文提出了一个较为完整的效用理论。为了做到这一点，本文从Jon Von Neumann在《博弈论》中发现的原始对应方法开始。然后，通过对象之间的不同对应关系，我们将整个经济博弈空间定义为伪欧几里得时空连续体。对于变密度椭球，使用格林方法，我们可以创建一个效用函数，它在原点包含一个可移动的孔不连续，并且在从- 1到∞的范围内是连续的。
{"title":"Theory of Imagination in Economic Games","authors":"Michael Balkowiec","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3843374","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3843374","url":null,"abstract":"The paper presents a more complete theory of utility. In order to do so, the paper begins with Jon Von Neumann's original method of correspondences found in Theory of Games. Then by means of different correspondences between objects we define the entire economic game space as a pseudo-Euclidean space-time continuum. Using Green's method for ellipsoids of variable densities, we are then able to create a utility function which contains a removable hole discontinuity at the origin, and is continuous for returns bounded from negative one to infinity.","PeriodicalId":399171,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science eJournal","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117134064","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Drawing on two assumptions: that menopause is an instrument for the efficient regulation of the duration of a biologically expensive state, and that people have children in order to obtain support from them in old age, we set out a new idea that seeks to explain both the occurrence of menopause and its timing. On the basis of the notion that the purpose of having children is to obtain support in old age, we perceive menopause as an upper limit to the fertile state, when a continued ability to give birth to children would not generate the desired support. The conjecture yields specific testable predictions, and can be assessed against the "reproductive conflict" hypothesis. Being supported by one's offspring is a distinctive feature of humans; in this context, we cannot rely on animal studies in evolutionary biology and related fields to help us to ascertain something that is specific to humans.
{"title":"Menopause as a Regulatory Device for Matching the Demand for Children with Its Supply: A Hypothesis","authors":"O. Stark","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3858459","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3858459","url":null,"abstract":"Drawing on two assumptions: that menopause is an instrument for the efficient regulation of the duration of a biologically expensive state, and that people have children in order to obtain support from them in old age, we set out a new idea that seeks to explain both the occurrence of menopause and its timing. On the basis of the notion that the purpose of having children is to obtain support in old age, we perceive menopause as an upper limit to the fertile state, when a continued ability to give birth to children would not generate the desired support. The conjecture yields specific testable predictions, and can be assessed against the \"reproductive conflict\" hypothesis. Being supported by one's offspring is a distinctive feature of humans; in this context, we cannot rely on animal studies in evolutionary biology and related fields to help us to ascertain something that is specific to humans.","PeriodicalId":399171,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science eJournal","volume":"128 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127087690","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The household economy approach is used as an early warning tool to identify areas of intervention and priority groups to benefit from food security support. Adopted in 2012 in Burkina Faso, the application of this tool is still in the experimental phase. After having sketched the national context, from a qualitative survey and using data from targeting surveys, paper exposes questions posed by the development practitioners and realities of application of this tool on a project in Burkina Faso in the region of Boucle du Mouhoun. Implementation of HEA in the field shows a dysfunction. The analyzes reveal a part of methodological subjectivity, the weight of opinion leaders, acting as development brokers and the absence of a complaints committee, an extremely cumbersome mechanism that is unrealistic to initiate. While HEA is seen by communities as a breakthrough, the current trend for practitioners to fill in the gaps is towards increasing the complexity of targeting methods. The initiatives developed require practitioners to maintain a close presence on targeting committees, an unrealistic presence to be deployed in a change of scale in the method and also accompanied by greater bureaucratization of aid.
家庭经济方法被用作一种早期预警工具，以确定干预领域和从粮食安全支持中受益的优先群体。该工具于2012年在布基纳法索通过，目前仍处于试验阶段。在通过定性调查和目标调查的数据概述了国家背景之后，论文揭示了发展从业者提出的问题以及在布基纳法索Boucle du Mouhoun地区的一个项目中应用该工具的现实情况。HEA在现场的实施显示出功能障碍。这些分析部分揭示了方法论上的主观性、意见领袖的分量、发展经纪人的作用以及投诉委员会的缺失——投诉委员会是一种极其繁琐的机制，启动起来是不现实的。虽然HEA被社区视为一项突破，但从业者目前填补空白的趋势是增加目标方法的复杂性。制定的倡议要求实践者在目标委员会中保持密切的存在，在方法规模的变化中部署这种不现实的存在，也伴随着更大的援助官僚化。
{"title":"Adjustments and Compromises of Household Economy Approach in Burkina Faso","authors":"Edmond Lankouandé, Azara Nfon-Dibié","doi":"10.31222/osf.io/9zxwj","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/9zxwj","url":null,"abstract":"The household economy approach is used as an early warning tool to identify areas of intervention and priority groups to benefit from food security support. Adopted in 2012 in Burkina Faso, the application of this tool is still in the experimental phase. After having sketched the national context, from a qualitative survey and using data from targeting surveys, paper exposes questions posed by the development practitioners and realities of application of this tool on a project in Burkina Faso in the region of Boucle du Mouhoun. Implementation of HEA in the field shows a dysfunction. The analyzes reveal a part of methodological subjectivity, the weight of opinion leaders, acting as development brokers and the absence of a complaints committee, an extremely cumbersome mechanism that is unrealistic to initiate. While HEA is seen by communities as a breakthrough, the current trend for practitioners to fill in the gaps is towards increasing the complexity of targeting methods. The initiatives developed require practitioners to maintain a close presence on targeting committees, an unrealistic presence to be deployed in a change of scale in the method and also accompanied by greater bureaucratization of aid.","PeriodicalId":399171,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science eJournal","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121169887","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Joan Robinson took an anti scientific approach to methodology and philosophy of science. Her belief was that Keynes’s models (which she misrepresented as being R. Kahn’s models) were TRUE models while the Classical and Neoclassical models were FALSE models. This showed up again in the early 1950’s in the useless and sterile controversy about the neoclassical aggregate production function model. Joan Robinson believed that this was a FALSE model. Apparently ,her opponents believed it was a TRUE model. The only relevant question ,from a scientific point of view, is the question “Is this model useful or not in helping to explain the phenomenon under investigation? ”Asking this question would have put an end to this so called “debate” before it surfaced and ended up being published in economics journals.
Of course, Keynes NEVER believed that models are either true or false. Models are useful, but they are, at best, only approximations to reality. Therefore, a model can’t be true or false; it can be better or worse than other models or an improved, better version of an existing model. The goal in economic science is to continually come up with useful models that were better than previous models or improved versions of older models, so that more of reality could be more accurately explained.
Joan Robinson did not teach economics to students. Joan Robinson’s goal was to indoctrinate students in her own unique, deviate, peculiar version of Bastard Keynesianism. Her goal would be to create brainwashed students who would aid in the promotion of the agenda of the Pseudo Keynesians. The Pseudo Keynesians were composed of her lover, Richard Kahn, her husband, Austin Robinson, and their ally, Roy Harrod, who was intensely jealous and envious of Keynes’s exalted position as the greatest living economist on the planet Earth.
In 1937, John Kenneth Galbraith came to Cambridge, England to study under J M Keynes. Unfortunately, indeed most unfortunately, Keynes’s massive May,1937 heart attack made that impossible. Instead, John Kenneth Galbraith was personally instructed by Joan Robinson. What she taught John Kenneth Galbraith, however, was her bastard Keynesianism (Robinsonianism). The results were a striking success for Joan Robinson. An examination of Galbraith’s comments on Keynes and the General Theory in Money (1975) demonstrate that Galbraith accepted all of the myths that Joan Robinson “taught” him and passed those myths on to many others in his books and publications.
{"title":"On Joan Robinson’s Completely Successful Indoctrination of John Kenneth Galbraith: Turning a Potential Keynesian Into an Actual Robinsonian","authors":"M. E. Brady","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3707862","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3707862","url":null,"abstract":"Joan Robinson took an anti scientific approach to methodology and philosophy of science. Her belief was that Keynes’s models (which she misrepresented as being R. Kahn’s models) were TRUE models while the Classical and Neoclassical models were FALSE models. This showed up again in the early 1950’s in the useless and sterile controversy about the neoclassical aggregate production function model. Joan Robinson believed that this was a FALSE model. Apparently ,her opponents believed it was a TRUE model. The only relevant question ,from a scientific point of view, is the question “Is this model useful or not in helping to explain the phenomenon under investigation? ”Asking this question would have put an end to this so called “debate” before it surfaced and ended up being published in economics journals.<br><br>Of course, Keynes NEVER believed that models are either true or false. Models are useful, but they are, at best, only approximations to reality. Therefore, a model can’t be true or false; it can be better or worse than other models or an improved, better version of an existing model. The goal in economic science is to continually come up with useful models that were better than previous models or improved versions of older models, so that more of reality could be more accurately explained. <br><br>Joan Robinson did not teach economics to students. Joan Robinson’s goal was to indoctrinate students in her own unique, deviate, peculiar version of Bastard Keynesianism. Her goal would be to create brainwashed students who would aid in the promotion of the agenda of the Pseudo Keynesians. The Pseudo Keynesians were composed of her lover, Richard Kahn, her husband, Austin Robinson, and their ally, Roy Harrod, who was intensely jealous and envious of Keynes’s exalted position as the greatest living economist on the planet Earth. <br><br>In 1937, John Kenneth Galbraith came to Cambridge, England to study under J M Keynes. Unfortunately, indeed most unfortunately, Keynes’s massive May,1937 heart attack made that impossible. Instead, John Kenneth Galbraith was personally instructed by Joan Robinson. What she taught John Kenneth Galbraith, however, was her bastard Keynesianism (Robinsonianism). The results were a striking success for Joan Robinson. An examination of Galbraith’s comments on Keynes and the General Theory in Money (1975) demonstrate that Galbraith accepted all of the myths that Joan Robinson “taught” him and passed those myths on to many others in his books and publications.","PeriodicalId":399171,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science eJournal","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133771059","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Consider a subjective expected utility preference relation. It is usually held that the representations with which this relation is compatible differ only in one respect, namely, the possible scales for the measurement of utility. In this paper, I discuss the fact that there are, metaphorically speaking, two additional dimensions along which infinitely many more admissible representations can be found. The first additional dimension is that of state-dependence. The second—and, in this context, much lesser-known—additional dimension is that of act-dependence. The simplest implication of their usually neglected existence is that the standard axiomatizations of subjective expected utility fail to provide the measurement of subjective probability with satisfactory behavioral foundations.
{"title":"Expected Utility in 3D","authors":"Jean Baccelli","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3248907","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3248907","url":null,"abstract":"Consider a subjective expected utility preference relation. It is usually held that the representations with which this relation is compatible differ only in one respect, namely, the possible scales for the measurement of utility. In this paper, I discuss the fact that there are, metaphorically speaking, two additional dimensions along which infinitely many more admissible representations can be found. The first additional dimension is that of state-dependence. The second—and, in this context, much lesser-known—additional dimension is that of act-dependence. The simplest implication of their usually neglected existence is that the standard axiomatizations of subjective expected utility fail to provide the measurement of subjective probability with satisfactory behavioral foundations.","PeriodicalId":399171,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science eJournal","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121282225","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Homo sapiens has demonstrated that it is the most versatile, adaptable intellectual problem-solver ever to evolve on planet earth. However, evolutionary success has also generated crises of unparalleled scope and urgency. Will super-adaptable apes continue to be equal to the problems that their success has created? The jury is still out.
{"title":"Sapient Apes Ascendant: The Costs and Benefits of Human Agency","authors":"T. McGettigan","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3676512","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3676512","url":null,"abstract":"Homo sapiens has demonstrated that it is the most versatile, adaptable intellectual problem-solver ever to evolve on planet earth. However, evolutionary success has also generated crises of unparalleled scope and urgency. Will super-adaptable apes continue to be equal to the problems that their success has created? The jury is still out.","PeriodicalId":399171,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science eJournal","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126802227","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Value notion in neither considered in the health economic analysis nor in health policy. Most of the papers are empirical in nature and value notion comes up only in methodology. Going beyond the factual details to approach normative stance and moving from statement of good or bad to statement of value in discourse of health policy is the main convergence of arguments arrived from different literature in this paper. Health care, in its present form, is nothing less than a basic need of every human being but there is doubt whether health care research in developed countries considers ‘value’. It is the objective of this paper to emphasize about this need.
{"title":"Inserting Value in Health Policy: A Literature Synthesis","authors":"E. Rajan","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3651954","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3651954","url":null,"abstract":"Value notion in neither considered in the health economic analysis nor in health policy. Most of the papers are empirical in nature and value notion comes up only in methodology. Going beyond the factual details to approach normative stance and moving from statement of good or bad to statement of value in discourse of health policy is the main convergence of arguments arrived from different literature in this paper. Health care, in its present form, is nothing less than a basic need of every human being but there is doubt whether health care research in developed countries considers ‘value’. It is the objective of this paper to emphasize about this need.","PeriodicalId":399171,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science eJournal","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126892465","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Keynes was very clear in the General Theory that he was no longer a Marshallian economist. He was rejecting the Marshallian approach to economics, except at the microeconomic level as regards the theory of the firm, because it is based on utilitarianism. Keynes, like Adam Smith, completely rejected the consumer theory of utility maximization because it directly conflicted with the virtues of Prudence and Temperance. The basic assumption of utility maximization, that consumer wants are insatiable, is Jeremy Bentham’s position that Adam Smith and Keynes rejected because Bentham’s utilitarian position directly conflicted with the Smith-Keynes Virtue Ethics position.
In its place, both Smith and Keynes argued that the upward sloping supply curve and downward sloping demand curve are simply the result of judicious, careful, circumspect, prudent and temperate behavior on the part of consumers and producers operating under conditions of partial uncertainty, whom Smith called the “sober” people. His famous discussion of the brewer, bread maker and butcher incorporates prudence as the first virtue that must be satisfied. However, there is another group of upper income class individuals who are not prudent and not temperate. Smith called these individuals imprudent risk takers, projectors, and prodigals. The directors of the British East India Company is Smith’s main example of this class of citizen. Keynes described these types of upper income class citizens as rentiers and speculators, who were supported by the forces of banking and finance, in chapter 12 of the General Theory.
Keynes makes it very clear in the preface that he can no longer accept Marshall’s Ricardian approach to economics. Of course, Ricardo, like J. B. Say, J. Mill, J.S.Mill, N. Senior, and L. von Walras, were all Jeremy Bentham’s students: “I myself held with conviction for many years the theories which I now attack, and I am not, I think, ignorant of their strong points… When I began to write my Treatise on Money I was still moving along the traditional lines of regarding the influence of money as something so to speak separate from the general theory of supply and demand… We are thus led to a more general theory, which includes the classical theory with which we are familiar, as a special case.” (Keynes,1936,pp.ix-xi).
Keynes completely rejected Marshall’s theory of the rate of interest, which was that M=L(Y), where Y =C+I, so that Aggregate Income=aggregate consumption + aggregate Investment. In its place, Keynes developed his Liquidity Preference Function on page 199 of the General Theory, L=(Y,r). Both constituents, the propensity to consume (Y) and liquidity preference (r), determine the equilibrium rate o interest, and not just Y or r separately. Keynes’s discussions in chapter 13 of the General Theory dealt only with a strict discussion of liquidity preference that Keynes isolated from chapter’s 8-12 ,which dealt strictly only with the propensity to con
凯恩斯在《通论》中明确表示，他不再是马歇尔学派的经济学家。他拒绝马歇尔的经济学方法，除了微观经济层面的企业理论，因为它是基于功利主义的。凯恩斯和亚当·斯密一样，完全反对效用最大化的消费者理论，因为它与审慎和节制的美德直接冲突。效用最大化的基本假设，即消费者的需求是无法满足的，这是边沁的立场，亚当·斯密和凯恩斯拒绝，因为边沁的功利主义立场与史密斯-凯恩斯的美德伦理学立场直接冲突。取而代之的是，斯密和凯恩斯都认为，向上倾斜的供给曲线和向下倾斜的需求曲线仅仅是消费者和生产者在部分不确定性条件下明智、谨慎、谨慎、谨慎和适度行为的结果，斯密称这些人为“清醒的”人。他关于酿酒师、面包师和屠夫的著名讨论将谨慎作为必须满足的第一美德。然而，还有另一群高收入阶层的人不谨慎，不节制。史密斯称这些人是鲁莽的冒险者、投影仪和浪子。英国东印度公司的董事是史密斯这类公民的主要例子。在《通论》第12章中，凯恩斯将这类高收入阶层公民描述为食利者和投机者，他们受到银行和金融力量的支持。凯恩斯在前言中明确表示，他不能再接受马歇尔的李嘉图经济学方法。当然，李嘉图和j·b·萨伊、j·密尔、j·s·密尔、n·西尼尔、l·冯·瓦尔拉斯一样，都是边沁的学生。“我与信念多年来我现在攻击的理论,我不是,我想,不知道他们的长处…当我开始写我的论文在金钱上我还是沿着传统的关于钱的影响可以说是独立于供给和需求的一般理论……我们也因此导致了更多的一般理论,包括我们熟悉的经典理论,作为一种特殊情况。”(1936年凯恩斯,pp.ix-xi)。凯恩斯完全否定了马歇尔的利率理论，即M=L(Y)，其中Y =C+I，因此总收入=总消费+总投资。取而代之的是，凯恩斯在《通论》第199页发展了他的流动性偏好函数L=(Y,r)。消费倾向(Y)和流动性偏好(r)这两个组成部分决定了均衡利率，而不仅仅是Y或r。凯恩斯在《通论》第13章的讨论只严格讨论了流动性偏好，凯恩斯将其与第8-12章分离开来，后者严格讨论了消费倾向。凯恩斯的流动性偏好理论被指定为L=M(r)，如《通论》第168页所示，这一误解导致人们错误地认为凯恩斯与马歇尔的唯一分歧是在利率理论上，因此凯恩斯唯一的重大变化是L=M(r)取代了马歇尔的L=M(Y)。凯恩斯也反对马歇尔的劳动力市场分析，认为资源的失业必须在这个市场中进行分析。考虑到正确的利率理论，非自愿失业是由于总(宏观)产出市场I的缺陷，与其他条件相同条件下劳动力市场的部分均衡分析无关。这种总投资不足继而导致投资品价格下跌，从而导致实际工资(w/p)上升。然后，古典经济学家、新古典经济学家和现代经济学家错误地将实际工资的上涨归因于高货币工资，而不是低投资品价格。凯恩斯的立场是，他的通论是由M=L(Y,r)给出的。于是就有了两个独立的特殊理论——M=L(Y)和M=L(r)。伪凯恩斯主义或新马歇尔学派(Joan Robinson, Austin Robinson, Richard Kahn，剑桥大学，英国)继续以马歇尔的总体方法为基础进行分析，错误地抓住了M=L(r)，而以庇古，亨德森，霍特雷，哈罗德和罗伯逊为代表的旧马歇尔学派继续认为马歇尔的M=L(Y)优于凯恩斯的M=L(r)。
{"title":"On J.M. Keynes’s Complete Rejection of Marshall’s Ricardian, Utilitarian Approach to the Theory of the Rate of Interest in the General Theory","authors":"M. E. Brady","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3305489","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3305489","url":null,"abstract":"Keynes was very clear in the General Theory that he was no longer a Marshallian economist. He was rejecting the Marshallian approach to economics, except at the microeconomic level as regards the theory of the firm, because it is based on utilitarianism. Keynes, like Adam Smith, completely rejected the consumer theory of utility maximization because it directly conflicted with the virtues of Prudence and Temperance. The basic assumption of utility maximization, that consumer wants are insatiable, is Jeremy Bentham’s position that Adam Smith and Keynes rejected because Bentham’s utilitarian position directly conflicted with the Smith-Keynes Virtue Ethics position. <br><br>In its place, both Smith and Keynes argued that the upward sloping supply curve and downward sloping demand curve are simply the result of judicious, careful, circumspect, prudent and temperate behavior on the part of consumers and producers operating under conditions of partial uncertainty, whom Smith called the “sober” people. His famous discussion of the brewer, bread maker and butcher incorporates prudence as the first virtue that must be satisfied. However, there is another group of upper income class individuals who are not prudent and not temperate. Smith called these individuals imprudent risk takers, projectors, and prodigals. The directors of the British East India Company is Smith’s main example of this class of citizen. Keynes described these types of upper income class citizens as rentiers and speculators, who were supported by the forces of banking and finance, in chapter 12 of the General Theory. <br><br>Keynes makes it very clear in the preface that he can no longer accept Marshall’s Ricardian approach to economics. Of course, Ricardo, like J. B. Say, J. Mill, J.S.Mill, N. Senior, and L. von Walras, were all Jeremy Bentham’s students: “I myself held with conviction for many years the theories which I now attack, and I am not, I think, ignorant of their strong points… When I began to write my Treatise on Money I was still moving along the traditional lines of regarding the influence of money as something so to speak separate from the general theory of supply and demand… We are thus led to a more general theory, which includes the classical theory with which we are familiar, as a special case.” (Keynes,1936,pp.ix-xi). <br><br>Keynes completely rejected Marshall’s theory of the rate of interest, which was that M=L(Y), where Y =C+I, so that Aggregate Income=aggregate consumption + aggregate Investment. In its place, Keynes developed his Liquidity Preference Function on page 199 of the General Theory, L=(Y,r). Both constituents, the propensity to consume (Y) and liquidity preference (r), determine the equilibrium rate o interest, and not just Y or r separately. Keynes’s discussions in chapter 13 of the General Theory dealt only with a strict discussion of liquidity preference that Keynes isolated from chapter’s 8-12 ,which dealt strictly only with the propensity to con","PeriodicalId":399171,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science eJournal","volume":"919 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116604818","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper analyzes the common aspects and the differences between the economocracy and the world war. From an economic view, the world wars have some effects on the economies. The theme of world wars is that they give economic solutions with an inhuman way from the view of social and human approach. On the other hand, the sister of democracy, the economocracy serves all the aspects of the democratic societies and political, social, and individual rights. Then, both give economic solutions, but with completely different effects on society, and science.
{"title":"Economocracy or World Wars?","authors":"Constantinos Challoumis Κωνσταντίνος Χαλλουμής","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3274201","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3274201","url":null,"abstract":"This paper analyzes the common aspects and the differences between the economocracy and the world war. From an economic view, the world wars have some effects on the economies. The theme of world wars is that they give economic solutions with an inhuman way from the view of social and human approach. On the other hand, the sister of democracy, the economocracy serves all the aspects of the democratic societies and political, social, and individual rights. Then, both give economic solutions, but with completely different effects on society, and science.","PeriodicalId":399171,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science eJournal","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121433102","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper analyzes the transformation of the nowadays democracy from the view of political and legal scientific reasoning. The theme is that the indirect democracy in many cases is in a disharmony with the concepts of the political view of citizens. Thence, in this work showed the importance that has the technology to the democracy.
{"title":"Direct Technological Democracy (D.T.D.)","authors":"Constantinos Challoumis","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3268763","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3268763","url":null,"abstract":"This paper analyzes the transformation of the nowadays democracy from the view of political and legal scientific reasoning. The theme is that the indirect democracy in many cases is in a disharmony with the concepts of the political view of citizens. Thence, in this work showed the importance that has the technology to the democracy.","PeriodicalId":399171,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science eJournal","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129647068","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：