tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post5726643930023913194..comments2024-03-25T07:51:47.758-04:00Comments on Thoughts On Economics: Wicksteed Versus MarxRobert Vienneauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14748118392842775431noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-6739958597225534632008-08-14T20:32:00.000-04:002008-08-14T20:32:00.000-04:00Yes, Wicksteed assumes Marx's theory of value is a...Yes, Wicksteed assumes Marx's theory of value is a theory of relative prices. Both Shaw and Wicksteed indicate that future publications of Marx's notes could cause a change in interpretation of the first volume of <I>Capital</I>.Robert Vienneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14748118392842775431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-27548566847806578002008-08-11T01:09:00.000-04:002008-08-11T01:09:00.000-04:00Hi Robert,I remember reading somewhere that Wickst...Hi Robert,<BR/><BR/>I remember reading somewhere that Wicksteed 'converted' Shaw to marginalism. Not sure where I read this.<BR/><BR/>As for whether it predated Bohm-Bawerk: Since Vol III of Capital wasn't published until the 1890s I don't think Wicksteed could have predicted Marx's theory of price. Whereas B-B's critique was post-vol III. Haven't read Wicksteed but I imagine he assumes 'value' means 'relative price' for Marx?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com