Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
John Kozy, your source of judgement, at least does not appear to be a neo-classical economist. But neither does he appear to be fully conversant with economic history or the history of economic thought. Smith did indeed have a very rudimentary, non quantitative, labor theory of value. Ricardo started to quantify the theory and Marx seized on the surplus value of labor, the difference between what the labor cost, customarily based on the minimum cost of  living for the laborers, and the value that the entrepreneur could get for the product, which was determined by the market, or by the entrepreneur if there was a poorly developed market or is the entrepreneur had pricing power.

Kozy almost seems to have re-invented Marx and proceeds to denigrate the contribution of Smith, who was one of the founding figures in economics. Before Smith and the Physiocrats there was very little that could count as economics. To me Kozy's approach reeks of ahistoricisim. His dismissal of Smith's The Theory of the Moral Sentiments as "sophmoric" along with his general tone brands HIM as sophmoric in my estimate.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Dec 14th, 2010 at 02:03:25 AM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series