Suchergebnisse

Some might argue that William T. Thornton, whatever his ultimate place in social history, has received far too much attention from economists. Yet, I welcome Michael White's comments on a recent paper of mine (1997) and even note that, in a small way, his earlier comments on my paper written with Sven Thommesen (1989) led me to reread Thornton's writings in depth. Nevertheless, and after augmented reflection, White's comments do not cause me to alter any of my arguments concerning Thornton's worth as an economic theorist. Indeed, rereading Thornton in light of White's comments strengthens my belief that his analysis was as flawed as I initially thought it to be. While Thornton's critique of supply and demand (read "of economic analysis") and others like it raise issues far broader and of more critical moment than those suggested by White, I confine my remarks to the issues he raises in his comment on my most recent paper.

Renewed interest has been kindled in the status and "meaning" of William T. Thornton (1813–1880) in the history of economic thought. Thornton is often credited, rightly or wrongly, with re-orienting J. S. Mill's thought on the wages fund—a critical cornerstone of classical economics. While Thornton's actual influence on Mill in this matter