Alfred Marshalls monetary theory presents itself as fragmentary and without internal coherence. Coherence can be given to it by developing the implied theoretical linkages between the money market, the securities market, and their respective interest rates, while noting the importance in interest- rate determination of the real forces of productivity and thrift.Marshalls development of a theory of money and securities markets arises from his dissatisfaction with the quantity theory of price-level determination as an explanation of the monetary transmission mechanism

In chapter 5 of his book More Heat Than Light (1989), Philip Mirowski mentions that the first neoclassical (W. S. Jevons, Leon Walras, Vilfredo Pareto, and Irving Fisher, but with the notable exception of Carl Menger) all referred to the analogy between their formulations and those of the physics of their day. Then he asserts, going beyond their statements on this matter, that the early neoclassical model was purely an analogical transposition of the model of the field theory of physics of the 1860s, which he calls “protoenergetics.” The latter implies a subject matter that is a mechanics of equilibrium and of reversible phenomena, and in which there is no question of the appearance of the notion of entropy.

The purpose of this paper is to reconstruct and evaluate, among other issues, Hawtrey’s social philosophy.

Hawtrey’s system as a whole is composed of the two distinct and yet interrelated subsystems: philosophy and social philosophy. The former has three components: the theory of evolution and rationalization; the theory of aspects; and Moorean ethics. The latter has two components: his conception of society in general; and his perception of capitalistic economy as one type of society.

We then examine three problematic elements connected with Hawtrey’s system: epistemology in Hawtrey and Moore; plus products and the market; and the ruler and the public.

Surprisingly, Benjamin Graham, the acknowledged “Father of Value Investing,” considered his most important work to be the invention of the Commodity Reserve Currency Plan during the 1930s and 1940s. Previous studies of the Plan have overlooked the fact that, of its three main components (buffer stocks, price stability, and currency backing), Graham regarded the first as the most important and the other two as “secondary” or “subsidiary.” By focusing on the buffer-stock aspect, we demonstrate, first, the breadth and depth of Graham’s overall conception in terms of both micro- and macroeconomics, and, second, the considerable overlap with John Maynard Keynes’s ideas developed around the same time, which are manifested particularly in their common conclusion that the inefficiency of commodity markets could be rectified only by government intervention. We also comment on Perry Mehrling’s assessment of Graham as “not any kind of economist at all” (JHET 2011).

This article focuses on Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” and other of his writings that were prompted by the unsustainable socio-economic and geo-political conditions under which the poor native Irish were living. The article begins with introductory comments and then moves to conditions in Ireland when Swift was writing that contributed to his strong concern for the native poor. Next is provided a summary of “A Modest Proposal” and consideration of what drove Swift to the extreme he reached in the essay. Following this, Swift’s writings are explored as indicators of his opinion of political arithmeticians, and conclusions close the paper.

This paper deals with the initial reception of the Marshall Plan by Georges Bataille and François Perroux in light of the discussion they held in the journal Critique, during the second half of 1948. I argue that Bataille and Perroux took the Marshall Plan as an enigma that current economic and political theories were not able to explain fully. In response, both authors contributed a unique and sophisticated economic analysis to transcend what they perceived as the limited scope of economics. By focusing on this interdisciplinary dialogue, this paper is intended as a contribution to a history of economic thought, taking in the economic inquiry of non-economists and the ways in which they relate to professional economists.