Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Menger
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
Scholars usually trace the basics of the neoclassical theory back to the marginal revolution, in which three great thinkers amended the fundamentals of modern consumer and production theory. Scholars also recognize, however, important differences between those three thinkers’ works — in the nature of the neoclassical framework and its application to the real world, especially in the field of political economy. In this note, we argue that the main difference in these works, not identified in previous publications on the subject of “dehomogenization”, is their understanding of the marginal unit. We demonstrate the relevance of this important difference in the socialist-calculation debate.
EN
This paper is an attempt to systematize the methodological insights and contributions of the Austrian School of Economics and present them in their most up-to-date elaboration, thereby building on the earlier literature on the subject. It aims to improve on the publications listed above in two aspects. First, it takes into account the most recent conceptual developments that address some of the common misunderstandings of the Austrian methodological position, as well as some of its more insightful contemporary criticisms. Second, it organizes the presentation of the relevant material around several clearly specifi ed methodological dimensions, while, in contrast to most of the abovementioned literature, keeping the description of the historical background behind the development of the Austrian method to an absolute minimum, as well as leaving out the non-methodological differences between the ASE and its intellectual rivals, thus aiming to make the presentation in question maximally focused and thematically unified.
EN
Carl Menger – as earlier Etienne de Condillac, Le Trosne, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John S. Mill, Jean-Baptiste Say, William S. Jevons – has associated the notion of value with the human need. Unlike his predecessors, Menger has not accepted the notion of commodity utility as a measure of its value. In that way, Menger has challenged a thesis deeply rooted in the history of economic thought that the notion of value denotes the commodity attribute that makes each good capable to meet human need. In Menger’s value theory, the notion of value belongs the category of human judgment on the importance of good for human life and well being, i.e. for his need satisfaction. It has been shown that Menger’s approach to the commodity value let us introduce the concept of aequalitas valoris to the theory of commodity exchange and neither “value in use” nor “value in exchange” can be treated as categories of commodity value theory.
PL
Carl Menger – podobnie jak wcześniej Etienne de Condillac, Le Trosne, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John S. Mill, Jean-Baptiste Say, William S. Jevons – łączył pojęcie wartości z potrzebą. W przeciwieństwie jednak do swoich poprzedników Menger nie uznał kategorii użyteczności rzeczy jako miary ich wartości. Zakwestionował tym samym pogląd głęboko zakorzeniony w historii myśli ekonomicznej, iż wartość jest własnością dobra, która sprawia, iż jest ono zdolne do zaspokojenia potrzeb człowieka. W systemie Carla Mengera wartość dobra należy do kategorii sądu o wadze potrzeby dla dobrobytu jednostki. W artykule pokazano, iż Mengerowskie ujęcie wartości pozwala wprowadzić pojęcie aequalitas valoris do teorii wymiany, a pojęć „wartość wymienna” oraz „wartość użytkowa” nie można traktować jako przynależnych do teorii wartości dóbr.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.