“It is common to distinguish necessaries, comforts, and luxuries,” wrote influential economist Alfred Marshall. “The first class including all things required to meet wants which must be satisfied, while the latter consist of things that meet wants of a less urgent character.” Marshall’s discernment between the various dimensions of the material economy – the influence of price, distinguishing human needs and wants, the utility of goods and services – allowed him to become not only an architect of neoclassical economics, but it allowed him to transform economics as a whole. For Alfred Marshall, immature economics had resulted in mass exploitation, plenty of poverty, and unequal distribution of wealth. This revealed much about the deficiencies in the study of economics as much as it did about its implementation: In his influential 1890 text The Principles of Economics, Marshall wrote about his urge to develop economics because “the study of the causes of poverty is the study of the causes of the degradation of a large part of mankind.” To understand economics required not only a moral dimension to be assigned to it, but it also required studying the political economy and social landscape of communities.
Although his drive was based on the inequality around him, Alfred Marshall was not a Marxist theorist in which he condemned the struggle between
Continue reading to THE ARTICLE »
The triumph of capitalism and the free market society was altogether unsurprising for neoclassical economists. The reason for this is because the individualistic and independent element of the free market best complements their views on human nature. On the whole, individuals are rational in always viewing situations with self-interest. As a result, humans are continuously looking for ways to maximize their profits or satisfaction in their daily life, while minimizing their losses. This competitive and maximum utility characteristic in people makes a market that stresses the importance of advantage and individualism the most effective way in channeling their nature while insuring the opportunity of satisfying this human need. However, in addition to individuals and institutions attempting to maximize their self-interest in absolute terms, neoclassical economists view a large part of the equation is maximizing individual self-interest in relative terms too. Neoclassical economics sought to make economics a more grounded study by incorporating elements of mathematics, biology, politics, and social science to make it more relatable to the common worker engaged in the market. When looking at relative advantage in the market,
Continue reading to THE ARTICLE »
The concept of marginal utility arose as rejection of the labor theory of value that had previously been espoused by neoclassical economists. Economists such as Adam Smith taught that the classical labor theory of value argued that the value – or utility – of a commodity was determined by three important factors that went into a product’s creation: the amount of labor that went into producing it, the effort required of the labor, and/or the amount of labor expected of others in exchange of the product. With the turn of the 19th century, this economic theory was challenged by other schools of thought that believed that there were many ignored factors that determined the utility of a product, mainly the marginal utility theorists.
Continue reading to THE ARTICLE »
“The difficulty lies not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones,” wrote British economist John Maynard Keynes in his 1935 text The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. “As these old ideas ramify, for those brought up as most of us have been, into every corner of our minds.” Keynes was a maverick economist. The popular school of economic thought in the early 20th century stressed the importance of the micro level and private sector of economics in influencing the public and macro level institutions of the economy. The popular thought was that because humans were rational in their pursuit to maximize their commodities and satisfaction, the free market would remain efficient and operate properly because it offered the best opportunity for individuals to create an economy that could insure maximum utility. In the wake of an economic collapse during the Great Depression, John Keynes launched what would be known as an economic “Keynesian Revolution” that stressed the importance of the mixed economy: one that valued the neoclassical importance of the micro level, with the need for accountability and stability protected by the macro level.
Continue reading to THE ARTICLE »
