首页> 外文期刊>The American Journal of Economics and Sociology >Comments on Four Papers on Economics and Human Heterogeneity
【24h】

Comments on Four Papers on Economics and Human Heterogeneity

机译:关于经济学与人类异质性的四篇论文的评论

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

These comments focus on some issues raised in the papers by Dimand, Peart and Levy, Cot, and Leonard. These papers are fascinating, but not without weaknesses. It is argued that Dimand's presentation of what he calls the "general principle" of classical economics is misconceived. There is a confusion in this paper between the classical view of equal capacity and the much newer concept of equally rational actual performance. Peart and Levy discuss the idea of unequal capacity for pleasure in Edgeworth, but do not draw a link back to the idea in J. S. Mill of different qualities of pleasure. Cot and Leonard provide informative accounts of the American eugenic movement and its links to progressivism, but with an insufficient degree of distinction between the various positions and agendas that were concerned.
机译:这些评论集中于Dimand,Peart和Levy,Cot和Leonard论文中提出的一些问题。这些论文引人入胜,但并非没有缺点。有人认为,迪曼德对古典经济学的“一般原理”的表述是错误的。本文在均等容量的经典观点和均等合理的实际表现的较新概念之间存在混淆。皮尔特(Peart)和利维(Levy)讨论了埃奇沃思(Edgeworth)中享乐能力不平等的想法,但并未将其与J.米尔(J. S. Mill)提出的具有不同享乐质量的想法联系起来。柯特和伦纳德提供了有关美国优生运动及其与进步主义的联系的丰富信息,但有关的各种立场和议程之间的区分程度不足。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号