{"title":"对Ahiakpor教授关于j.s.密尔、“工资基金”和产出需求的回应","authors":"Roy H. Grieve","doi":"10.1080/10370196.2020.1784651","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Ahiakpor takes both Kates and Grieve to task for what we say regarding J. S. Mill, the wages-fund doctrine, demand for commodities and Say’s Law. With respect to our alleged shortcomings, Ahiakpor observes, ‘Grieve believes he has shown the error of Say’s Law. Both Grieve and Kates are mistaken in their principal arguments.’ In this note I take up points raised by Ahiakpor against my views on these matters; I let Kates himself deal elsewhere with Ahiakpor’s other objections.","PeriodicalId":143586,"journal":{"name":"History of Economics Review","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Response to Professor Ahiakpor, Concerning J. S. Mill, the ‘Wages-Fund’ and the Demand for Output\",\"authors\":\"Roy H. Grieve\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10370196.2020.1784651\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Ahiakpor takes both Kates and Grieve to task for what we say regarding J. S. Mill, the wages-fund doctrine, demand for commodities and Say’s Law. With respect to our alleged shortcomings, Ahiakpor observes, ‘Grieve believes he has shown the error of Say’s Law. Both Grieve and Kates are mistaken in their principal arguments.’ In this note I take up points raised by Ahiakpor against my views on these matters; I let Kates himself deal elsewhere with Ahiakpor’s other objections.\",\"PeriodicalId\":143586,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"History of Economics Review\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"History of Economics Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10370196.2020.1784651\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of Economics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10370196.2020.1784651","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
A Response to Professor Ahiakpor, Concerning J. S. Mill, the ‘Wages-Fund’ and the Demand for Output
Abstract Ahiakpor takes both Kates and Grieve to task for what we say regarding J. S. Mill, the wages-fund doctrine, demand for commodities and Say’s Law. With respect to our alleged shortcomings, Ahiakpor observes, ‘Grieve believes he has shown the error of Say’s Law. Both Grieve and Kates are mistaken in their principal arguments.’ In this note I take up points raised by Ahiakpor against my views on these matters; I let Kates himself deal elsewhere with Ahiakpor’s other objections.