Jean-Baptiste Say and the Classical Canon in Economics

This book explores the perceived paradigmatic conflict within British classical economics between the so called 'Ricardo School' and the contemporary French Economics of Jean-Baptiste Say. Samuel Hollander provides the reader with extensive evidence, utilizing all editions of Say's main texts and his lesser-known writings in order to demonstrate his adherence to much of Ricardian theory. This intriguing book focuses on selected doctorinal issues and surrounding debates, and will interest all serious historians of economic thought, finding a place on the bookshelves of many economists across the world

A Rejoinder to Abraham Hirsch

The dispute between Hollander and Peart, and Hirsch, turns on the nature and role of verification in Mill’s perception of the appropriate method for Political Economy. Professor Hirsch maintains against us that, for Mill, the models constructed by political economists are insulated from verification. His case is based on two counterclaims. First, that when Mill writes of “verification” in Book III of the Logic, he has in mind a procedure differing from that appropriate for Political Economy, which allows only “indirect verification” (outlined in Book VI). Hirsch finds that Hollander and Peart confuse the two. Secondly, since the contexts of our case studies often relate to policy formulation, Hirsch finds our elucidations of an appeal to experience of a more basic order to be unconvincing

John Stuart Mill\u27s Method in Principle and in Practice: A Review of the Evidence

We believe an additional, and contrasting, interpretation of Mill’s method is supported by the evidence. For in our view Mill insisted on the possibility of theory modification in the light of inadequacies revealed by empirical evidence, and also held that the central behavioral axiom is not of universal relevance but is pertinent only to the local circumstances of contemporary Great Britain and America—and, even so, qualified as we shall see—that axiom itself is empirically based. On our reading, there is more in common between his research strategy and that of Milton Friedman than is sometimes granted, at least when Friedman’s position on theory appraisal is appreciated in the manner of Hirsch and De Marchi (1990). As Fels has paraphrased this position in a review: “start with a thorough marshalling of facts, frame a hypothesis to explain them, make predictions from the hypothesis about facts not used in constructing it, compare the predictions with the actual facts, revise the hypothesis in response to the outcome of the tests, and continue in an iterative fashion” (1991, p. 84)

Mercados, precios y distribución: por qué Marshall estaba en lo correcto con respecto a Ricardo

El artículo no presenta resume

Invasions of Russia in 1708 and 1812

Thesis (S.B.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Humanities, 2009.Includes bibliographical references (leaves 97-98).Introduction: There were two invasions of Russia by foreign powers in the early eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Charles XII of Sweden entered Russia in 1708 and was destroyed in battle outside Poltava in 1709. Napoleon invaded in 1812 and was back in France before the end of that year, having suffered defeat and having lost all but a few remnants of the once-proud Grand Army. Both of these men were at the height of their power and feared by their enemies up to the time of their attacks against Russia. However, the Duke of Wellington understood the way of conquerors and commented on their fate. "A conqueror is like a cannon-ball. He cannot stop of his own accord. He must go on until he runs down or hits something." These men captured the imagination of their European contemporaries. Voltaire would later describe this attention: Conquerors are a species between good Kings and Tyrants, but partake most of the latter, and have a glaring reputation. We are eager to know the most minute circumstances of their lives. Such is the ... weakness of mankind, that they look with admiration upon persons glorious for mischief, and are better pleased to be talking of the destroyer, than the founder of an Empire. Charles XII and Napoleon were both the preeminent generals of their age. But unlike the French emperor, Charles is a relatively unknown figure today. He was the last of the Northern Vikings, the last Nordic warrior king to lead his men into battle, and a halo still surrounds his memory. Never was a man more thoroughly suited to inspire Swedish troops than Charles XII. Noble, just, self-denying, and brave, he seemed to them almost a supernatural being. Every victory he won made his soldiers more confident in him. Every danger he shared with them spurred them on to further exertions. Every age has its own heroes, men who embody the prevailing characteristics of their epoch. Charles was that man while he lived at the start of the eighteenth century. The very mention of his name and exploits still causes the heart of every Swede to beat quicker. It is a name renowned throughout his world, and associated with a career so extraordinary, that both the man and the career have formed a subject of greatly varied criticism. Perhaps his great descendant, King Gustavus III, summed up the life of Charles most accurately: Charles XII was rather extraordinary than great. He certainly had not the true conquering temperament which simply aims at acquisition of territory. Charles took dominions with one hand only to give them away with the other. Superior to Alexander, with whom it were [sic] an injustice to compare him, he was as much inferior to his rival Peter in the qualities which make a great ruler, as he excelled him in those qualities which go to make a great hero.4 Unfortunately for Sweden, Charles was also ideally placed in history to demonstrate the fragility of her empire; much as Napoleon would doom the French empire a hundred years later with his own ambitions.by Samuel Hollander.S.B

Commentary on the article: “Maintenance of Wellness in Patients With Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder Who Discontinue Medication After Exposure/Response Prevention Augmentation A Randomized Clinical Trial”

© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Non Commercial-No Derivatives Attribution License, to view a copy of the license, see: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Peer reviewe

Adam Smith’s Green Thumb and Malthus’ Three Horsemen: Cautionary tales from classical political economy

This essay identifies a contradiction between the flourishing interest in the environmental economics of the classical period and a lack of critical parsing of the works of its leading representatives. Its focus is the work of Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus. It offers a critical analysis of their contribution to environmental thought and surveys the work of their contemporary devotees. It scrutinizes Smith's contribution to what Karl Polanyi termed the "economistic fallacy," as well as his defenses of class hierarchy, the "growth imperative" and consumerism. It subjects to critical appraisal Malthus's enthusiasm for private property and the market system, and his opposition to market regulation. While Malthus's principal attraction to ecological economists lies in his having allegedly broadened the scope of economics, and in his narrative of scarcity, this article shows that he, in fact, narrowed the scope of the discipline and conceptualized scarcity in a reified and pseudo-scientific way