During the last three decades, thanks to the efforts of J. Schumpeter, G. Stigler, M. Blaug, P. Schwartz, T.W. Hutchison and others, a revaluation of the contribution of…
During the last three decades, thanks to the efforts of J. Schumpeter, G. Stigler, M. Blaug, P. Schwartz, T.W. Hutchison and others, a revaluation of the contribution of John Stuart Mill to the history of economic doctrines in general and to that of economic analysis in particular has taken place on a quite significant scale. The basic portrayal of J.S. Mill as an unoriginal and incoherent writer which prevailed from about the time of his death till around the middle of the present century came to be seriously and, one may say, successfully challenged. While the “eclecticism” of Mill was traditionally emphasised with a pejorative tone, no less than M. Blaug concluded that in the final analysis, it “worked to Mill's advantage” and that “the multiplicity of analytical ideas, often running in opposite directions, opened the way to subsequent refinement and development” (Blaug, 1968, p. 220). The theoretical inventiveness of J.S. Mill was stressed in still louder terms by G. Stigler when he wrote that “he was one of the most original economists in the history of the science” (Stigler, 1955, p. 7).
Elie Halévy essentially expressed the view recorded by James Mill in his anonymously written ‘On the Nature, Measures, and Causes of Value’7 that the first chapter of the Critical Dissertation relating to the nature of value ‘contains not an assertion, who which, as far as ideas politico-economical are concerned, Mr. Ricardo would not have assented; it contains, not indeed, as far as such ideas are concerned, an assertion which is not implied in the propositions which Mr. Ricardo has put forth. It is a criticism on some of Mr. Ricardo's forms of expression…’ ([J. Mill], 1826a, p. 157). The justification for the Ricardian reaction is clear enough, as I shall now show.8
Students have direct access to academic ghost writers who are able to provide for their assessment needs without the student needing to do any of the work. These ghost…
Students have direct access to academic ghost writers who are able to provide for their assessment needs without the student needing to do any of the work. These ghost writers are helping to fuel the international industry of contract cheating, raising ethical dilemmas, but not much is known about the writers, their business or how they operate. This paper aims to explore how the ghost writers market their services and operate, based on observable information.
This paper reviews data from providers actively offering contract cheating services available to the public on Fiverr.com, a low-cost micro outsourcing site. The search term write essay is used to identify providers, finding 103 Gigs from 96 unique providers. Visible information, such as provider marketing, advertised services, pricing information and customer reviews, is analysed.
The results demonstrate that bespoke essays are readily available to students at a low cost. The majority of providers operate from Kenya. Revenue calculations indicate a price point of US$31.73 per 1,000 words, below the cost of traditional essay mills, but show that these 96 providers have generated around US$270,000 of essay writing business between them.
This study affords a look into a complex and established industry whose inner workings are normally kept private and for which little published information currently exists. The research adds to what is known about the extent, location and operation of the contract cheating industry.
The “theory” in the distinctive sociological theory of C. Wright Mills is this: American society was increasingly “postmodern,” by which he meant a society devoid of…
The “theory” in the distinctive sociological theory of C. Wright Mills is this: American society was increasingly “postmodern,” by which he meant a society devoid of reason and freedom as practical features of everyday life and thus a societal formation fundamentally severed from the aims and optimism of The Enlightenment (Mills, 1959b, p. 13, p. 166, also 1959a). With Max Weber and John Dewey principally in mind, but also upon the benefit of his study of Marx and the Frankfurt School, Mills argued that “rationality without reason” was coming to dominate lived experience (see Dandaneau, 2001, 2006, 2007).
This article examines relationships between capitalism and democracy as perceived by contending perspectives within the liberal capitalist‐liberal democratic tradition(s)…
This article examines relationships between capitalism and democracy as perceived by contending perspectives within the liberal capitalist‐liberal democratic tradition(s). Bentham and the Mills are taken as initiating both this tradition and the core elements of the debate within it. Pre‐Benthamite theories are first reviewed. Then, after discussion of Bentham and James Mill and of John Stuart Mill, Mill's late nineteenth and early twentieth century successors are examined. We then go on to consider hypotheses concerning the “exceptional” quality of relationships between capitalism and democracy in the United States. The penultimate section of the article adumbrates the main contours of mid‐twentieth century pluralist‐elitist theories. We conclude with a summary.
Streissler considers Roscher′s theory of crisis to be highly original and important. Schumpeter, on the other hand, considers it only a rehash of the ideas of others. Examines this contradiction, beginning with a reflection on the essential elements of the debates on Keynes, Say′s law and classical economics. Continues by analysing the statements of German economists before Roscher on the issues of the general glut controversy. Ends with a closer inspection of Roscher′s own theory of crisis.
Diagrams are ubiquitous in economics and are uncontestably among the most used, if not the most important workhorses of economists, though they come in many forms. This…
Diagrams are ubiquitous in economics and are uncontestably among the most used, if not the most important workhorses of economists, though they come in many forms. This essay examines the different uses of graphs and diagrams in the pioneering work of two Victorian economists, Stanley Jevons and Alfred Marshall. We stress the difference between their use as representations and as visual reasoning tools, a difference that became obscured in the twentieth century with the rise of econometrics.