How Davenport derived the new theory of value and
Herbert Davenport (1861-1931)
changed Karl Menger’s subjectivism. Subjectivism attempts to trace the
individual costs of supply costs or factors of production back to the
preferences of individuals as the ultimate consumer role. Davenport changed the
theory, saying that the tracking process from the origin one must always base
on the reality economic society of the personal thought of an entrepreneurial
role, considering not only the choices, but also the means to satisfy those
choices. Davenport criticized about the marginalism from the Austrian theory
and looking forward to further agree to Friedrich Hayek, especially Ludwig von
Mises. Although he made an important contribution to subjectivism, his works
are similar and not included in subjectivist economics.
contribution to the theory of value and cost in Austria in today’s word, the
term “value theory” means “price theory. Price includes a value
that customer is willing to pay and the consumer factor production. This theory
is difference from the easy currency exchange rates, in which assumes that all
exchanges is involved in the use of money capital. A comprehensive theory of
prices aims to discover the causes of each price in a market economy. But none
of the Austrian economists try to achieve this goal. Austrians rule out theft
and deception. In addition, the Austrians, while carefully recognizing that the
currency is not neutral, put forward a price theory independent of monetary
theory. In doing so, they neglected the supply and demand of cash balances. In
addition, Austrian authors often exclude time preferences for simplicity.
Finally, in this area, Austrian theory does not attempt to explain the credit
and credit based on money.
of the cost theory
It is only when we talk about the theory of value in Austria
that we are not talking about an all-encompassing theory but rather a specialized
theory that aims to show the relationship between the above effects of the
price of the goods and the factors. After that, the paper also assumes that
property rights are completely clear, no fraud, neutral currency, no time
preference and no credit. The title of this article contains the word
“cost,” indicating that relative price theory should also describe or
explain the costs of everyday life. The cost in this sense means the
opportunity cost, which may be different from the price that the producer must
pay for the factor of production.
When modern Austrian economists use the term “cost,” they always regard cost as subjective, which means that cost is perceived by a subject. When they use the term to refer to the cost of production in a market economy, they refer to what some entrepreneurs think of the cost. Footnotes. They may not be aware that this way of saying is very modern. In the early Austrian values ??and cost theory, such as Carl Menger, Friedrich, Visese and Eugene Bombervik; there were mentioned entrepreneurs. However, entrepreneurship as a role became the center of Austrian theory only after the publication of Mises’ Human Action. Footnotes Mises did not see his contribution in this area is original.
In addition, he also commended Frank Knight’s 1921 book on entrepreneurs, especially about Knight’s distinction between risk and uncertainty. But Mises went far beyond these authors, reflecting the apparent human behavior of entrepreneurs. It is this fact that distinguishes later Austrian values ??and cost theory from earlier ones. Footnotes However, Mises is expected on this issue. I will establish the American economist Herbert J. Davenport (1861-1931) in this paper. As early as 1908, I came up with the values ??and cost perspective of modern Austria. In his assessment of Bohm and Victoria theory of the background to do so. The comparison between Austrian theoriesAustrian modern economists generally believe that following the first generation (or the first two) Austrians – Carl Menger, Friedrich von Wieser and Eugen after Eugen Bohm Bawerk, the real reason for the economic transmission in Austria is the one-way Austrian, English-speaking economist for thirty years. During that time, the only economics in English masters in Austria was Wiese and Böhm. Even before 1900, their books were translated into English and several articles were written for Anglo-American journals. However, these books and these are not the best that the Austrian economy can offer. Wiesel was attracted by socialism, so did not focus on price theory. On the other hand, Bohm made a serious mistake during the period of capitalism and production. Menger’s groundbreaking work is not in English. As a result, the English-speaking world is deprived of the best chance to study Austrian economics. Austrian historians of thought acknowledge that some Americans have absorbed earlier Austrians or arrived independently of them. Mises realized and praised Frank Fetter, an American of the early 20th century, for his foresight in his vision of temporal preferences and interests. Footnotes In addition, he supplemented Frank Knight’s concept of dealing with competition and uncertainty. Footnotes But as far as I know, the only Austrian economist has at least some knowledge of the value and cost of American economics, as Richard Ebeling (1977). Footnotes but Ebeling focuses primarily on writers who try to submit early Austrian theories to English-speaking readers. After 1891, he did not mention American writers until American students in Mises started writing the subject. If the premises is correct, the Austrian Austrians were surprised that Bowen’s contemporary American Davenport fully expounded the ideas contained in the theory of value and cost in the 19th century Austria, criticized these ideas and Theory advances to this point similar to Mises. Footnotes Indeed, in my opinion, Davenport’s argument is superior to Mises, though it lacks Mises’s epistemological basis. The idetification of davenport’s theoryDavenport rightly identified this as the heart of Austria’s early cost outlook. He pointed out that the classical school did not explain the cost. The Austrian school must fully face this issue. However, on the question of whether Austria succeeded in explaining costs, Davenport said that Bohm’s discussion in the paper was merely acceptable. In explaining the costs, Bohm quoted the above-mentioned Austrian standard theory, that is, the entrepreneur considers the price of the factor in calculating the cost, which ultimately comes from the marginal price that consumers are willing to pay for their product. Davenport said this is not enough because it does not adequately account for the human agent, as the entrepreneur estimated in the competitive system. What he meant was that Bohm did not consider all obviously different people, to assess the price of determining a factor of production. I discuss this further below.
between Davenport and Mises
Davenport advanced the theory of value and cost in Austria in ways not yet recognized by modern economists associated with the Austrian school. He predicted Mises’s criticism of the subjective value theory advanced by the Austrian school, albeit from a less empathetic perspective. He proposed the first clear statement of subjectivist perspectives in economics. He used the method of retaining demand to market as an appropriate complement to Menger’s “goods order” approach. With entrepreneurial spirit as the center, he forecasts Mises’s price and market theory. He defines entrepreneurship in much the same way as Mises.
Mises, of course, first decided on the behavioral basis of
economics. Davenport did not do this. Davenport also did not attack positivism,
mathematical economics and econometrics. The latter may be due to the tendency
of these occupational economics at the turn of the century. Another important
point is that although neither of them has achieved great success in the view
of professional scholars, Mises was surrounded by a group of enthusiastic
followers in the 1920s. To my knowledge, Davenport works independently to try
to succeed in the eyes of peers through his work. Perhaps an independent writer
was unlikely to persuade his point of view to be usefully specialized in the
academic struggles that had taken place at the time in American universities
for a competitive worldview and concept of the nature of economics. In any
case, modern Austrians made a serious mistake on Fett’s discussion. It is wise
to thoroughly examine Davenport’s work.