Equilibrium might have been a central concept with Marshall but he was aware
that there might not be one under certain cost conditions. Telser says of
Marshall: "This conclusion, together with Marshall's well-known statement that
a seller might not lower his price 'for fear of spoiling the market' is strong
evidence of his sophisticated comprehension of the nature of a competitive
equilibrium." (p. 53 of A Theory of efficient cooperation and competition)
Jim Devine wrote:
> a very interesting post!
>
> Ted Winslow writes: > These influences show up in a number of essential
> ways in Marshall's economics. For instance, Marshall takes a "dialectical"
> view of social interdependence. This underpins his conception of "caeteris
> paribus" and his use of the term "normal".<
>
> I don't get how concepts like "ceteris paribus" and "normal" jibe with
> dialectics, which involve a process in which ceteris is never paribus and
> today's "normal" is always different from yesterday's. How does equilibrium
> (which seems a central concept to Marshall) fit in with dialectics?
>
> later on: >In another essay, "The Future of the Working Classes" (Memorials
> pp. 109-118), he sets out the conditions which would be required for all
> persons to develop into "gentlemen" (his term for Marx's idea of the
> "universally developed individual" - a term suggestive of the fact that, in
> contrast to Marx, Marshall's version of the idea was not free of sexism).<
>
> also notice that Marshall implies that disalienation involves workers
> becoming like a gentleperson, while Marx would see the gentry as themselves
> alienated (in a different way than workers, natch).
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine/JDevine.html
