Search results

The present essay re-examines the scope of Sraffa’s critique of Marshall’s supply curves that the former developed in his 1925 and 1926 articles showing that neoclassical supply curves derived from non-proportional returns are not robust both in the short and in the long run. After examining what a short-run and a long-run equilibrium means both for the original Sraffa’s articles and for Marshall’s pioneer contribution, the chapter discusses the common procedure in conventional economics to introduce the limitations to the growth of the firm. The argument of the chapter will be based on the 1920s articles as well as on the ‘Lectures on Advanced Theory of Value’ delivered in 1928–1931 by Sraffa at Cambridge University, now publicly available online by the Wren library, Trinity College, Cambridge. For short-run analysis, it must be assumed that the number of firms is fixed. This assumption entails serious problems with regards to the notions of competition and competitive behaviour. For long-run analysis, the sources of increasing costs are problems of management and control. However, this idea is untenable both on logical and empirical grounds. We argue that contemporary mainstream microeconomic treatment of costs and supply in the context of perfect competition still presents several problems. These problems, rather than being superficial, lie at the root of the supply and demand approach of value and distribution.

“Economics is a Serious Subject.” Edwin Cannan.

Allyn Young′s lectures, as recorded by the young Nicholas Kaldor, survey the historical roots of the subject from Aristotle through to the modern neo‐classical writers. The focus throughout is on the conditions making for economic progress, with stress on the institutional developments that extend and are extended by the size of the market. Organisational changes that promote the division of labour and specialisation within and between firms and industries, and which promote competition and mobility, are seen as the vital factors in growth. In the absence of new markets, inventions as such play only a minor role. The economic system is an inter‐related whole, or a living “organon”. It is from this perspective that micro‐economic relations are analysed, and this helps expose certain fallacies of composition associated with the marginal productivity theory of production and distribution. Factors are paid not because they are productive but because they are scarce. Likewise he shows why Marshallian supply and demand schedules, based on the “one thing at a time” approach, cannot adequately describe the dynamic growth properties of the system. Supply and demand cannot be simply integrated to arrive at a picture of the whole economy. These notes are complemented by eleven articles in the Encyclopaedia Britannica which were published shortly after Young′s sudden death in 1929.

This paper lays out the uses of demand curves, both for profit optimization, strategy, tiering and list price setting. This tool is also useful in public policy, such as extending health‐care coverage. It describes how to build a demand curve, and draw useful conclusions.

This paper provides examples of actual demand curves, and how they have been used for new product development, and in out‐maneuvering competitors. Examples are drawn from a number of industries, such as telecom, information services, insurance and electronics, and show how supply and demand are not static, but are highly interactive.

Companies and legislators are not familiar with the demand curves, despite its long history of use in academia. As a result of unfamiliarity with this tool, companies often make costly mistakes in estimates of new product uptake and volumes. If instead of demand curves they rely on price elasticities, companies deprive their senior management of a tool that suggests strategic responses to competitive situations. Surprisingly, many companies have never actually developed a demand curve for their markets.

This article allows managers have not actually seen a real demand curve to see one, and understand what this tool could do for them. It gives examples of new product development and tiering to address multi‐price level markets. In addition, it suggests how public policy makers should focus on shaping supply and demand, rather than imposing floors or ceilings on prices for health‐care coverage. Price ceilings today are responsible for widespread gaps in health care coverage. Finally, the literature on demand curves fails to show how supply and demand are highly interactive.

The paper published below was prepared by Taylor Ostrander for Frank Knight’s course, Economic Theory, Economics 301, during the Fall 1933 quarter.

Course Notes

This article analyzes the difference between the budgetary expense and the opportunity cost of defense inputs. If inputs are obtained by the government from a market economy with undistorted prices, the price paid for the last unit of each input acquired equals the opportunity cost. However, taxes create a distortion between opportunity cost and unit price. An additional complication, discussed using the case of military personnel, is that premarginal units may have an opportunity cost lower than the unit price determined at the margin. Principles used to determine the social discount rate are also discussed in the analysis.