Re: Alfred Marshall

[GREG RANSOM <GRANSOM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ric Holt writes,

"Marshall recognized the historical roundabout and interdependent
nature of capital" -- ditto Hayek (see his The Pure Theory of Capital).

In Fritz Machlup's review of Hayek's scholarly contribution for
the Nobel selection committee, he writes at the conclusion of his brief:
"Where do hayek's greatest achievements lie? .. We can make our
assement somewhat easier if we confince ourselves to Hayek's contribution
to economic science .. If I had to single out the area in which Hayek's
contributions were the most fundamental and pathbreaking, I would cast
by voet for the theory of capital.  As I said before, when I reviewed
Hayek's book on The Pure Theory of Capital, it is 'my sincere conviction
that this work contains some of the most penetrating thoughts on the
subject that have ever been published."

It seems only know that we can begin to understand the significance of
Hayek's work in this area -- importantly this work is built on a future
oriented and path-dependent picture of interrelated non-permanent resource
values built on the micro-foundations of Menger and Bohm-Bawerk -- but
rejecting the backward looking long-period uniform rate of returen picture
of classical and neo-classical economist.  Recall that Hayek is the
originator of the notion of intertemporal equilibrium (but he makes use
of this logical construction for explanatory purposes unknown too Arrow or
Hahh, or Debreu, etc.).

-- coulndn't help but take the bait, Ric.  Many on this list have
read Hayek's The Pure Theory of Capital and I would welcome further
discussion of what in fact constitutes Hayek's central refutation of
the Keynesian and Sraffian fallacy of the uniform non-scarcity of capital
goods ('universal idleness' and all that).

Greg Ransom