DOCSLIB.ORG

Economic Theory of the Leisure Class

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Economic Theory of the Leisure Class Economic Theory of the Leisure Class Nikolai Bukharin 1927 Contents Preface to the Russian Edition i Preface to the American Edition v Bourgeois Political Economy since Marx vi 1 Methodological Foundations of the Theory of Marginal Util- ity and of Marxism 1 1.1 Objectivism and Subjectivism in Political Economy . 2 1.2 The Historical Point of View and the Unhistorical Point of View . 10 1.3 The Point of View of Production and the Point of View of Consumption . 16 1.4 Conclusions . 19 2 The Theory of Value 20 2.1 Subjective and Objective Value; Definitions . 22 2.2 Utility and Value (Subjective) . 24 2.3 The measure of Value and the Unit of Value . 28 3 The Theory of Value (Continued) 33 3.1 The Theory of Utility by Substitution . 33 3.2 The Amount of Marginal Utility and the Quantity of Com- modities . 39 3.3 The Fixing of the Value of Commodities in Various Types of Consumption; Subjective Exchange Value; Money . 42 3.4 The Value of Complementary Goods . 45 3.5 The Value or Productive Commodities; Production Costs . 48 3.6 Conclusions . 54 1 CONTENTS 2 4 The Theory of Profit 60 4.1 The Importance of the Problem of Distribution; Formulation of the Question . 60 4.2 The Concept of Capital; "Capital" and ”Profit” in the "So- cialist" State . 63 4.3 General Description of the Capitalist Production Process; The Formation of Profits . 68 5 The Theory of Profit (Continued) 75 5.1 Two Causes for the Overestimation of Present Goods . 75 5.2 The Third Cause for the Overestimation of Present Goods; Their Technical Superiority . 81 5.3 The Subsistence Fund; The Demand for Present Goods and the Supply of such Goods; The Origin of Profit . 93 6 Conclusion 100 A The Policy of Theoretical Conciliation 105 A.1 Tugan-Baranovsky's formula . 106 A.2 Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky's "Logic" . 108 A.3 Tugan-Baranovsky's Fundamental Fallacy . 110 Preface to the Russian Edition This book was completed in the fall of 1914. The Introduction was written in August and September of that year. I had long been occupied with the plan of formulating a systematic crit- icism of the theoretical economy of the new bourgeoisie. For this purpose, I went to Vienna after succeeding in making my escape from Siberia; I there attended the lectures of Professor B¨ohm-Bawerk (1851-1914), of the Univer- sity of Vienna. In the library of the University of Vienna, I went through the literature of the Austrian theorists. I was not permitted, however, to finish this work in Vienna, since the Austrian Government had me imprisoned in a fortress just before the outbreak of the World War, while its argues were entrusted with the task of subjecting my manuscript to careful examination. In Switzerland, to which I repaired after my deportation from Austria, I had an opportunity to study the Lausanne School (Walras), as well as the older economists, at the library of the University of Lausanne, and thus to trace the theory of marginal utility to its roots. At Lausanne, I also made an ex- haustive study of the Anglo-American economists. Political activities took me to Stockholm, where the Royal Library and the special economic library of the Higher Commercial School (Handelsh¨ogskolan) afforded me an oppor- tunity to continue my study of the later bourgeois political economy. My arrest in Sweden and my deportation to Norway brought me to the library of the Nobel Institute at Christiania; after reaching the United States, I was enabled to study the American economic literature even more thoroughly in the New York Public Library. For a long time the manuscript of this book could not be found in Chris- tiania (now Oslo), where I had left it, and it is only due to the most painstak- ing efforts of my friend, the Norwegian communist, Arvid C. Hansen, that it was found and brought to Soviet Russia in February, 1919. I have since i added but a few notes and observations, concerned chiefly with the Anglo- American School and the most recent publications. So much for the external history of this book. As to its substance, I should like to make the following observations: Hitherto two types of crit- icism of the latest bourgeois political economy have been practiced in the Marxian camp, either an exclusively sociological criticism, or an exclusively methodological criticism. For instance, it was ascertained that the theo- retical system in question was the outgrowth of a specific class psychology, which definitely disposed of it; or, it was pointed out that certain method- ological bases, certain approaches to the problem were incorrect, and it was therefore considered unnecessary to proceed to an exhaustive criticism of the internal phases of the system. No doubt, if we start with the fact that it is only a class theory of the proletariat that can be objectively correct, a mere revelation of the bourgeois character of any specific theory, is, strictly speaking, sufficient to justify its rejection. At bottom, this is a correct attitude, for Marxism claims its general validity precisely for the reason that it is the theoretical expression of the most advanced class, whose "needs" of knowledge are far more audacious than those of the conservative and therefore narrow-minded mode of thought of the ruling classes in capitalist society. Yet it is quite clear that the correctness of this assumption should be proved precisely in the struggle between the ideologies themselves, and particularly, by a logical criticism of the theories of our opponents. A sociological characterization of a certain theory, therefore, does not relieve us of the responsibility of waging war against it even in the field of a purely logical criticism. The same is true also of a criticism of method. To be sure, to prove that the point of departure of the methodological bases is a false one is equivalent to overthrowing the entire theoretical structure erected on those bases. Yet the struggle between ideologies requires that the incorrectness in method be proved by the fallacious partial inferences of the system, in which connection we may point out either the internal contradictions of the old system, or its incompleteness, its organic inability to embrace and explain a number of important phenomena to the advantage of the discipline in question. It follows that Marxism must give an exhaustive criticism of the latest theories, which must include not only a methodological criticism, but also a sociological criticism, as well as a criticism of the entire system as pur- sued to its furthest ramifications. It was thus that Marx formulated the problem presented by bourgeois political economy (in his Theorien ¨uber den Mehrwert, edited by Karl Kautsky, fifth edition, 1923, 3 vols.). While Marxists have as a rule contented themselves with a sociological ii and methodological criticism of the Austrian School, the bourgeois oppo- nents of this school have criticised it chiefly from the point of view of the incorrectness of certain specific inferences. Only R. Stolzmann, who stands almost alone in this work, has attempted to furnish a complete criticism B¨ohm-Bawerk. In so far as certain fundamental ideas of this author are in close theoretical agreement with Marxism, our criticism of the Austrians re- sembles that made by Stolzmann. I have considered it my duty to point out agreements between these two criticisms even in cases in which I had arrived at the same conclusions before I became acquainted with Stolzmann's work. However, in spite of his talents, Stolzmann bases his work on an entirely in- correct conception of society as a "purposeful structure". It is not without reason that R. Liefmann, a very important adherent of the Austrian School, whose profundity he has enhanced and whose peculiarities he presents in a more emphatic form, defends him-self against Stolzmann by the method of attacking the latter's teleology. This teleological point of view, coupled with his most pronounced apologetic tone, prevents Stolzmann from constructing a suitable theoretical frame for his criticism of the Austrian School. Only Marxists can perform this task; it is to do this that I have written the present book. Our selection of an opponent for our criticism probably does not require discussion, for it is well known that the most powerful opponent of Marxism is the Austrian School. It may appear unusual that I should publish this book at a moment when civil war is rampant in Europe. Marxists, however, have never accepted any obligation to discontinue their theoretical work even at periods of the most violent class struggle, so long as any physical possibility for the performance of such work was at hand. More serious is the objection that it is at least foolish to refute the capitalist theory at a moment when both the object and subject of this theory are being destroyed by the flames of the communist revolution. But even such a contention will not hold water, since a criticism of the capitalist system is of the utmost importance for a proper under- standing of the events of the present day. And, in so far as a criticism of the bourgeois theories may smooth the path for such an understanding, such criticism has an abstract theoretical value. Now for a few words as to the form of presentation. I have aimed at the utmost brevity, which probably is the reason for the comparative difficulty of my exposition. On the other hand, I have made many quotations from the Austrians as well as from the mathematical economists, the Anglo-Americans, etc. There is considerable prejudice against this mode of presentation in our Marxist circles, which consider such treatment to be a mark of a merely "bookish" erudition.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lucas on the Relationship Between Theory and Ideology
    Discussion Paper No. 2010-28 | November 17, 2010 | http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/2010-28 Lucas on the Relationship between Theory and Ideology Michel De Vroey IRES, University of Louvain Please cite the corresponding journal article: http://dx.doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2011-4 Abstract This paper concerns a neglected aspect of Lucas’s work: his methodological writings, published and unpublished. Particular attention is paid to his views on the relationship between theory and ideology. I start by setting out Lucas’s non-standard conception of theory: to him, a theory and a model are the same thing. I also explore the different facets and implications of this conception. In the next two sections, I debate whether Lucas adheres to two methodological principles that I dub the ‘non-interference’ precept (the proposition that ideological viewpoints should not influence theory), and the ‘non-exploitation’ precept (that the models’ conclusions should not be transposed into policy recommendations, in so far as these conclusions are built into the models’ premises). The last part of the paper contains my assessment of Lucas’s ideas. First, I bring out the extent to which Lucas departs from the view held by most specialized methodologists. Second, I wonder whether the new classical revolution resulted from a political agenda. Third and finally, I claim that the tensions characterizing Lucas’s conception of theory follow from his having one foot in the neo- Walrasian and the other in the Marshallian–Friedmanian universe. JEL B22, B31, B41, E30 Keywords Lucas; new classical macroeconomics; methodology Correspondence Michel De Vroey, IRES, University of Louvain, Place Montesquieu 3, B- 3458 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium: e-mail: [email protected] A first version of this paper was presented at seminars given at the University of Toronto and the University of British Columbia.
    [Show full text]
  • A Historical Sketch of Profit Theories in Mainstream Economics
    International Business Research; Vol. 9, No. 4; 2016 ISSN 1913-9004 E-ISSN 1913-9012 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education A Historical Sketch of Profit Theories in Mainstream Economics Ibrahim Alloush Correspondence: Ibrahim Alloush ,Department of Economic Sciences, College of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Zaytouneh University, Amman, Jordan. Tel: 00962795511113, E-mail: [email protected] Received: January 4, 2016 Accepted: February 1, 2016 Online Published: March 16, 2016 doi:10.5539/ibr.v9n4p148 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v9n4p148 Abstract In this paper, the main contributions to the development of profit theories are delineated in a chronological order to provide a quick reference guide for the concept of profit and its origins. Relevant theories are cited in reference to their authors and the school of thought they are affiliated with. Profit is traced through its Classical and Marginalist origins into its mainstream form in the literature of the Neo-classical school. As will be seen, the book is still not closed on a concept which may still afford further theoretical refinement. Keywords: profit theories, historical evolution of profit concepts, shares of income and marginal productivity, critiques of mainstream profit theories 1. Introduction Despite its commonplace prevalence since ancient times, “whence profit?” i.e., the question of where it comes from, has remained a vexing theoretical question for economists, with loaded political and moral implications, for many centuries. In this paper, the main contributions of different economists to the development of profit theories are delineated in a chronological order. The relevant theories are cited in reference to their authors and the school of thought they are affiliated with.
    [Show full text]
  • Nicolai Ivanovich Bukharin 1 888- 1938"
    NICOLAI IVANOVICH BUKHARIN 1 888- 1938" Ken Coates 1978 marks a macabre anniversary. Forty years ago, in March 19 38, there took place in Moscow the last of the great show ~rials.' Previously there had already been two earlier public trials of former Bolshevik leaders, mowing down among others, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Piatakov and ~adek.~ A closed court-martial involving foremost Red Army commanders like Tukhachevsky, Yakir and Kork had also preceded this last trial,3 which was to involve Bukharin, Rykov, Krestinsky, Yagoda, Rakovsky and sixteen others. The third great trial was in one sense the keystone in a horrendous arch: all the charges which were brought in its forerunners were calculated to prove that Trotsky, from exile, was organizing with a selection of foreign powers to bring about the downfall of the Soviet Government, and that the internal opposition was not only disloyal, but criminally implicated in a vast terrorist conspiracy. By extending the web of this plot to implicate Bukharin and Rykov, a final amalgamation was thus charged against former oppositions of both Right and Left, and the effect was to establish that henceforth no "loyal" opposition was in fact possible. The Soviet political structure still manifestly suffers the ill-effects of this tragic decision, which would have been baleful even if the absurdly implausible charges in the trials had all been true, and was simply paralysing in the actual event, that they were all deliberately fabricated. Ryltov was, after all, a former prime minister, and Bukharin had been not only editor of Isvestia, and long-standing politbureau member, but, from 1926 onwards, chairman of the Communist International.
    [Show full text]
  • Monthly Review Press Catalog, 2011
    PAID PAID Social Structure RIPON, WI and Forms of NON-PROFIT U.S. POSTAGE U.S. POSTAGE Consciousness ORGANIZATION ORGANIZATION PERMIT NO. 100 volume ii The Dialectic of Structure and History István Mészáros Class Dismissed WHY WE CANNOT TEACH OR LEARN OUR WAY OUT OF INEQUALITY John Marsh JOSÉ CARLOS MARIÁTEGUI an anthology MONTHLY REVIEW PRESS Harry E. Vanden and Marc Becker editors and translators the story of the center for constitutional rights How Venezuela and Cuba are Changing the World’s Conception of Health Care the people’s RevolutionaRy lawyer DOCTORS 2011 Albert Ruben Steve Brouwer WHAT EVERY ENVIRONMENTALIST NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT CAPITALISM JOHN BELLAMY FOSTER FRED MAGDOFF monthly review press review monthly #6W 29th Street, 146 West NY 10001 New York, www.monthlyreview.org 2011 MRP catalog:TMOI.qxd 1/4/2011 3:49 PM Page 1 THE DEVIL’S MILK A Social History of Rubber JOHN TULLY From the early stages of primitivehistory accu- mulation“ to the heights of the industrial revolution and beyond, rubber is one of a handful of commodities that has played a crucial role in shaping the modern world, and yet, as John Tully shows in this remarkable book, laboring people around the globe have every reason to THE DEVIL’S MILK regard it as “the devil’s milk.” All the A S O C I A L H I S T O R Y O F R U B B E R advancements made possible by rubber have occurred against a backdrop of seemingly endless exploitation, con- quest, slavery, and war.
    [Show full text]
  • The Neglect of the French Liberal School in Anglo-American Economics: a Critique of Received Explanations
    The Neglect of the French Liberal School in Anglo-American Economics: A Critique of Received Explanations Joseph T. Salerno or roughly the first three quarters of the nineteenth century, the "liberal school" thoroughly dominated economic thinking and teaching in F France.1 Adherents of the school were also to be found in the United States and Italy, and liberal doctrines exercised a profound influence on prominent German and British economists. Although its numbers and au- thority began to dwindle after the 1870s, the school remained active and influential in France well into the 1920s. Even after World War II, there were a few noteworthy French economists who could be considered intellectual descendants of the liberal tradition. Despite its great longevity and wide-ranging influence, the scientific con- tributions of the liberal school and their impact on the development of Eu- ropean and U.S. economic thought—particularly on those economists who are today recognized as the forerunners, founders, and early exponents of marginalist economics—have been belittled or simply ignored by most twen- tieth-century Anglo-American economists and historians of thought. A number of doctrinal scholars, including Joseph Schumpeter, have noted and attempted to explain the curious neglect of the school in the En- glish-language literature. In citing the school's "analytical sterility" or "indif- ference to pure theory" as a main cause of its neglect, however, their expla- nations have overlooked a salient fact: that many prominent contributors to economic analysis throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries expressed strong appreciation of or weighty intellectual debts to the purely theoretical contributions of the liberal school.
    [Show full text]
  • Firmin Oulès and the “New Lausanne School”
    Firmin Oulès and the "New Lausanne School" David Sarech (University of Lausanne, Ph.D. Student) In this paper I will present Firmin Oulès’ “harmonized economics” and interrogate the relationship between state and market in his thought. “Harmonized economics” were conceived as the continuation of Léon Walras’ theory. The key concept of the first Lausanne school is the notion of equilibrium. Indeed, Walras forged it in order to “scientifically” demonstrate the superiority of a competition-based economy. However, the mathematical approach he chose, as well as his disdain for the orthodox economy of his time, led him to be misunderstood and he did not receive the recognition he was expecting. Thus the concept of general equilibrium would be forgotten until the mid 1950’s when it would become the core of microeconomics. However, as recent studies in history of economic thought have shown, the concept of equilibrium in Walras’ thought has to be understood in a broader context than a purely economical one. Indeed, the main goal of Walras was to bring an answer to “the social question”. Contrary to Marx, he did not think of it as being a problem of profit distribution between labor and capital. Instead he thought the goal of the economist was to create an economic system were everyone would be able to exert its inner abilities and in which inequalities would be based solely on merit. The incentive created by private property and profit-seeking being the groundwork of a flourishing economy, the equilibrium had to be understood as a tool to establish this idealistic society.
    [Show full text]
  • Marginal Revolution
    MARGINAL REVOLUTION It took place in the later half of the 19th century Stanley Jevons in England, Carl Menger in Austria and Leon walras at Lausanne, are generally regarded as the founders of marginalist school Hermann Heinrich Gossen of Germany is considered to be the anticipator of the marginalist school The term ‘Marginal Revolution’ is applied to the writings of the above economists because they made fundamental changes in the apparatus of economic analysis They started looking at some of the important economic problems from an altogether new angle different from that of classical economists Marginal economists has been used to analyse the single firm and its behavior, the market for a single product and the formation of individual prices Marginalism dominated Western economic thought for nearly a century until it was challenged by Keynesian attack in 1936 (keynesian economics shifted the sphere of enquiry from micro economics to macro economics where the problems of the economy as a whole are analysed) The provocation for the emergence of marginalist school was provided by the interpretation of classical doctrines especially the labour theory of value and ricardian theory of rent by the socialists Socialists made use of classical theories to say things which were not the intention of the creators of those theories So the leading early marginalists felt the need for thoroughly revising the classical doctrines especially the theory of value They thought by rejecting the labour theory of value and by advocating the marginal utility theory of value, they could strike at the theoretical basis of socialism Economic Ideas of Marginalist School This school concentrated on the ‘margin’ to explain economic phenomena.
    [Show full text]
  • Hayek on Wiesner
    '- \ ~#'~ The Development A WILEY PUBLICATION -------------oF----- IN ECONOMICS Kenneth E. Boulding Economic Thought Consultant in Economics GREAT ECONOMISTS IN PERSPECTIVE Edited by HENRY WILLIAM SPIEGEL Professor of Economics The Catholic University of America JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., NEW YORK CHAPMAN & HALL, LIMITED, LONDON lf77?-- ~ , '- Hayek on Wieser WESER INSPIRED an admiration coming close to worship among all who came under the spell of his powerful personality. Read­ ers of his works cannot fail to be impressed by his human greatness and universality. Those who have never met him in person will appreciate Friedrich von Wieser (1851-1926) was educated at Vienna these characteristics more fully when they are shown in the light of all and at several German universities. He held a teaching posi­ his accomplishments, including those which lie outside the field of tion in Prague until he succeeded to Menger's chair at the Uni­ economics. I shall try in the fo1lowing to combine a brief review of versity of Vienna after the latter's resignation in 1903. Wieser Wieser's work in economics with an appraisal of the whole man. is the author of the only systematic treatise on economics turned Friedrich von Wieser, an offspring of an old family of Austrian public out by the founders of the Austrian school, Social Economics servants, was born in Vienna on July 10, 1851. His father, a high (1914; English translation 1927). In this work, Wieser proves government employee, had originally intended to become a painter, and himself a master of the method of successive approximation, Wieser inherited from both parents a pronounced artistic disposition.
    [Show full text]
  • Socialism in One Country” Promoting National Identity Based on Class Identification
    “Socialism in One Country” Promoting National Identity Based on Class Identification IVAN SZPAKOWSKI The Russian Empire of the Romanovs spanned thousands of miles from the Baltic to the Pacific, with a population of millions drawn from dozens of ethnic groups. Following the Russian Civil War, the Bolsheviks inherited the problem of holding together such a heterogeneous body. At the same time, they were forced to uphold Marxist ideology demanding worldwide revolution of the proletariat while facing the reality that despite the turmoil following the First World War no such revolution was forthcoming. In 1924 the rising Joseph Stalin, along with Nikolai Bukharin, devised the theory of “Socialism in One Country” which would become the solution to many of these problems facing the Bolsheviks. First of all, it proclaimed the ability of socialism to succeed in the Soviet Union alone, without foreign aid. Additionally, it marked a change from Lenin’s policy of self-determination for the Soviet Union’s constituent nations to Stalin’s policy of a compulsory unitary state. These non-Russian ethnics were systematically and firmly incorporated into the Soviet Union by the promotion of a proletariat class mentality. The development of the theory and policy of “Socialism in One Country” thus served to forge the unitary national identity of the Soviet Union around the concept of common Soviet class identity. The examination of this policy’s role in building a new form of national identity is dependant on a variety of sources, grouped into several subject areas. First, the origin of the term “Socialism in One Country,” its original meaning and its interpretation can be found in the speeches and writings of prominent contemporary communist leaders, chief among them: Stalin and Trotsky.
    [Show full text]
  • A VOICE from the DEAD Philosophical Arabesques
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by DCU Online Research Access Service A VOICE FROM THE DEAD Helena Sheehan Introduction to Philosophical Arabesques by Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin (1888-1938) published by Monthly Review Press and New York University Press New York 2004 This is a voice from the dead. It is a voice speaking to a time that never heard it, a time that never had a chance to hear it. It is only speaking now to a time not very well disposed to hearing it. This text was written in 1937 in the dark of the night in the depths of the Lubyanka prison in Moscow. It was completed in November on the 20 th anniversary of the socialist revolution to which its author had given his life, the revolution that was in the process of devouring its own true believers, the revolution that was not only condemning him to death but demanding that he slander his whole life. This text lay buried in a Kremlin vault for more than half a century after its author had been executed and his name expunged from the pages of the books telling of the history he had participated in making. After decades, his name was restored and his memory honoured in a brief interval where the story of the revolution was retold, retold in a society to which it crucially mattered, just before that society collapsed to be replaced by one in which the story was retold in another and hostile way, a society in which his legacy no longer mattered to many.
    [Show full text]
  • Adam Smith and the Austrian School of Economics: the Problem of Diamonds and Water
    Stefan Poier 1st year Part-time Doctoral Studies Adam Smith and the Austrian School of Economics: The Problem of Diamonds and Water Keywords: Adam Smith, Austrian School of Economics, Value Paradox, Marginal Utility, Decision Making Introduction When end of 2017 Leonardo da Vinci's painting "Salvator Mundi" was auctioned off for over $450 million, it was nearly three times as expensive as the second most expensive painting, a Picasso, and it could have compensated for the state deficit of Lithuania. An absurdly high sum for a piece of wood and oil paint. How do you explain such a price? Neither the amount of time spent working on it, nor the benefits from this work alone could justify it. Why do we often pay high prices for goods with little use, but low prices for things that are sometimes partially vital? Generations of economists and philosophers have tried to resolve this apparent paradox. An explanation for this price is - quite simply - an individual’s willingness to pay this price. The prestige gain of owning one of only fifteen paintings of the probably most important artist and universal scholar of all time can already provide an enormous increase in status. It is the scarcity, the uniqueness of the artwork, which justified the high increase in utility or satisfaction. If there were any number of similar works, no one would pay more than the utility value for it. This – today rational – economic inference was not always granted. It is based on the recognition that the benefits of consumption of a good decreases with the amount consumed (and thus with the saturation of the consumer).
    [Show full text]
  • Imputation and Value in the Works of Menger, Böhm-Bawerk and Wieser
    E-LOGOS/2005 ISSN 1121-0442 _____________________________________________ Imputation and Value in the works of Menger, Böhm-Bawerk and Wieser Šimon Bi ľo University of Economics, Prague [email protected] Alford Fellow, The Ludwig von Mises Institute, July 21, 2004 Version January 10, 2005 1 Abstract: Analysis of the discussions within the first two generations of the Austrian school of economics constitutes an inevitable cornerstone of every further inquiry on the fields of the theory of value and imputation theory. Only with knowledge of Menger’s, Wieser’s and Böhm-Bawerk’s understanding of cardinalism and problems related with utility, value and their interdependence, we are apt to understand correctness or incorrectness of their positions and also positions of their followers. Thus, we could trace back cardinalist notions of utility seeded by Menger and understand later Mises’- Čuhel reformulation of the whole value theory into an ordinalistic one. Mises fully escaped the Mengerian tradition in this point and also transformed the whole theory of imputation into the theory of pricing of the factors of production. The only exception, from the point of view of imputation theory of highest importance, is his insistence on the value equation of means and ends that confused his successors and was investigated only recently. Within the context of present state of value and imputation theories, two related problems arise: “What constitutes theory of imputation, theory of value and valuation of the factors of production, today?” and “Is Menger-Böhm-Bawerkian solution of imputation theory really suitable for the explanation of the pricing process and isn’t Wieser’s objection of circularity of the imputation theory applied in price-creation justified?” These are the questions that are badly needed to be answered in order to clarify the theory in the field.
    [Show full text]