Analysis of Classical Economist Theories

Analysis of genuine Economist TheoriesYashwardhan BanthiaDo the classical economists induce a coherent coach of thought in the history of economics, or be they rather a loose grouping of writers whose differences are more large than what they catch in common?AbstractThis makeup bequeath question the compendium of smashing accumulation, income statistical distribution and proficient progress expounded by study classical economists, David Ricardo, Adam metalworker and Karl Marx. Detailed inclinations on metalworkers views on office of take, Ricardos investigation of victimisation the repulse theory to replace machines and Marxs theories of capitalism and his pas seul of Ricardos analysis will be explained. It will in the long run be concluded that classical economists constitute a coherent school of thought, whose philosophies are more correspondent than different. excogitationThe classical school of thought has always placed a slap-up amount of emphasis on the an alysis of economic growth. The question asks the proofreader whether the theories and philosophies of the classical writers were logical and consistent with regard to the economic behavior, or if they were exactly writers whose ideas were rather dissimilar to that of their compatriots.The paper would critically discuss the ideologies and theories implemented by classical economists, with particular focus on the solution of the various forms of scientific tack that have major insinuations on the income distribution amongst rent, wages and acquire.The comp iodinnts of this paper are as follows Section 2 highlights Adam Smiths approach to this issue of technological convince where the argument pivots around his views on sectionalization of comminute and its components. Section 3 reviews David Ricardos definition of the elbow grease theory of cheer and his response to technical change which would gas chapter XXXI, On Machinery, which is newly added as seen in the third edit ion of the Principles. Section 4 studies the views of Karl Marx, where his hypothesis on the organic composition of capital is examined closely in relation to the theory proposed by Ricardo. The sections are non just hold to these specific writers, other classical economists are discussed in the capacity of the aforesaid(prenominal) philosophies as and where applicable. Following this is a final section that concludes.Adam Smith Division of push backAt the very beginning of The Wealth of Nations, Smith, in his Introduction and Plan of Work maintains that a nations loving intersection point (taking into account the social product minus the workers consumption) is measured by the skill, dexterity, and judgment with which the g station is commonly applied. A primitive feature of his study, Smith considers an investigation of the reasons due to which the productivity of workers would increase (Smith, WN I.3-4).Smiths perception of the concept of division of perseverance was ext remely wide it cover many characteristics and varying forms of technological change. Principally although, Smith accredited the division of labor to the influence of threesome essential elements that led to an increase in productivity. Firstly, particular(a)ization helped workers hone their skills and become defter as a dissolver. Secondly, a pack time is saved as there is no shift from one activity to a nonher and there is better utilization of resources. Lastly, arduous and confused labor processes would be replaced by powerful machines through innovation, i.e., replacing labor with machines.A careful study of Smiths analysis of division of labor further clarifies Smiths ideas as can be seen in the first three chapters of the first book of The Wealth of Nations. In chapter one for instance, Smith distinctly conveys how effective a device, division of labor is in terms of increasing productivity. He then goes on to tell in chapter two, that it is a natural human tendency to t ruck, barter and fill in one thing for another, which appear to be entrenched in faculties of reason and speech, which further provides justification to division of labor (Smith, WN I.ii.1-2). The argument is then completed in chapter three where Smith emphasizes the fact that the mart limits the division of labor a larger division of labor is generated by a larger market and thus, larger productivity is generated amongst firms as a result. While the markets are expanded by accumulation of capital, Smiths study emphasizes on the determinants of the latter.Consequently, there has been a lot of repugn on whether Smiths views on division of labor, income distribution and his analysis of accumulation were consistent. I believe that technological progress was not viewed by Smith as boon, which was indisputably valuable to all classes of purchase order. However, sections three and iv would discuss Ricardo and Marx, and their views and criticisms on elements of Smiths theories.David R icardo task theory of value and technological changesBefore we discuss Ricardos views on the implications of technological change and its effects on income distribution and capital accumulation, his fundamental law of income distribution essential first be delimit an inverse correlation between wages and the general rate of mesh. He said that the rate of profits would be smaller if a large proportion of what the labor produces is addicted to him and vice-versa (Ricardo, Works VIII 194). He was certain of the fact that technological change was an integral component in terms of the developing the modern society and that different effects would be experienced as a result of different forms of change. He was the first economist to have officially defined labor theory of value and thus, his work was considered to be the turning prognosticate in the history of the classical school of thought.This is because he reflected upon numerous scenarios in order to arrive at a broad range o f consequences that could be an aftermath of technological change. He argued on one particular discipline regarding a production unit that was completely automated and rightly pointed by that in a case where all the work is done by machinery, there will be no demand for labor. Furthermore, he discussed that cryptograph despite capitalists would be able to consume commodities or even obtain or rent a machine. (Ricardo, Works VIII 399-400). Surprisingly, the most fundamental technological change commonly associated with Ricardo is however, the problem of machinery. He further went on to assert that the introduction of new machines into the system of production can finally lead a redundancy of workers. This was later defined as technological un artFollowing this, Ricardo withdraws his previous views on machinery in his third edition of the Principles, 1821, in which he states that the application of machinery to any branch of production, as should have the effect of conservation labor, was a general good, accompanied only with that portion of perturb which in most cases attends the removal of capital and labor from one employment to another (Ricardo, Works I 386). Ricardo was however convinced that Says law, could not in every case, avert the redundancy of workers (Ricardo, Works I 290). He the rightly corrected himself by stating that he was convinced that using machinery in place of labor was injurious to the interests of the labors.(Ricardo, Works I 388).On the contrary, I strongly support his idea that it is possible without reducing profits, that in advance(p) and improved machines reduced the amount of labor required for production purposes. Labor productivity would increase however as the machines decrease the sacrifice of labor (Ricardo, Works IV 397). However, on a final note on Ricardo, it must be mentioned that Ricardo, as a classical economist had a very deep understanding regarding of labor theory of value. Marxs version of this idea would b e discussed next.Karl Marx Capitalism and labor theory of valueMarx select Ricardos labor theory of value and inculcated some changes of his own. He widen Ricardos theory by defining value to be the product of all socially expended labor which was needed, thus suggesting that apart from direct labor, labor used by to create the product was likewise factored into value. Marx harbord special praise for Ricardos scientific impartiality and love of truth (Marx 1954 412) and the cartwheel which so essentially distinguishes him from vulgar economists (Marx 1969 555).On closer inspection, it can be observed in Marxs vividness III of Capital, part three specifically, where he appraises Ricardos views on effects of technological change and the labor theory. In such a way, this problem of technological change was Marxs attention of focus of attention in his scrutiny of capitalism. However, Marx insisted that this problem must be examined regularly within the framework of a circular liq uefy of production as he had established in his second volume of Capital.Furthermore, Marx view was that every stage and line of production required immutable capital. The important underlying implication is that maximum level of profit in such a system would be finite. These levels of profit would be determined by what Marx coined as the organic composition of capital and would have an upper limit. His study led him to the conclusion that if this organic composition of capital falls (rises) during the time period where there is capital accumulation and changes in technology whilst assuming that wages remain constant, then, it must follow that that the veritable rate of profit will fall. As a reader, I am almost compelled to think that Ricardos views and ideas have had a strong push on Marx, as is exhibited by his statements.Likewise, Marx inspected Ricardos theories with utmost care, correcting the latters theories in some cases, but most evidently absorbing what he reflected to be thorough into his framework. For instance, Marx asserted that when the organic composition of capital rises, it is inescapably the case that the general rate of profits may fall given the fact that the surplus value would be constant, which is contrary to Ricardos principle. other such example could be Marxs relative over-population theory (Marx 1959 249-251) or a reserve army of the unemployed. Marx pro produces that the redundant workers cannot be expect to be hired back by factories that utilize machines because of the labor saving trait of the machines. A downward pressure is thus exerted by this reserve army.To Marx and capitalism, what mattered is not saving in victuals labor in general, however a saving in the paid portion of living labor (Marx 1959262). The evidence is unmistakable I believe that it serves to show how intricately close the writings of Ricardo and Marx were also the fact that Marx was coherent in exhibiting his theories, and door-to-door in portraying his thoughts which has served its purpose in the history of economic thought. purposeThis endeavor shows how major classical economists consist of a coherent school of thought through their philosophies and theories that still continue to serve as a basis on which more modern models and theories have been established. This paper shows how major classical economists tackled the issue of technological change that contributed to the growth of a capitalist economy.The three economists, namely Smith, Ricardo and Marx place a lot of attention on the impact of accumulation of capital and technological change on profits. It is provoke to note that although they arrive at a conclusion that the general rate of profit would fall, their arguments which back up that claim differs in important characteristics. The essay is however limited to evaluating a hypothetical situation of one-good economies that are not well suited to examine the intricacies at hand.Nevertheless, it is distinctive that all these writers have, in their own capacities, contributed to explaining the dynamisms of a capitalist economy and the need to increase labor productivity. The argument can be concluded by supporting the claim that these writers constituted of a coherent school of thought whose theories and ideas were more similar to each other and it isnt the case that their differences were more noticeable than what they had in common.Bibliography and referencesBhaduri, A. and Harris, D.1987. The complex dynamics of the simple Ricardian system. Quarterly Journal of Economics102,893902.Dmitriev, V.K. 1974. Economic Essays on Value, Competition and Utility, English translation of a collection of Dmitrievs essays make in 1904 in Russion, edited by M.D. Nuti, Cambridge Cambridge University Press. (Originally published in 1898)Eltis, W. 1984. The Classical surmise of Economic Growth, London MacmillanGaregnani, P. 1987. superfluity Approach to Value and dissemination, The New Palgrave. A Dictiona ry of Economics, edited by J. Eatwell, M. Milgate and P. Newman, vol. 4, London Macmillan, pp. 560-74.Glyn, A.2006. will Marx be proved right?Oxonomics1,136.Hicks, J. 1969. A Theory of Economic History, Oxford ClaerendonMarx, K. 1954. Capital, vol. I, capital of the Russian Federation Progress Publishers.Marx, K. 1959. Capital, vol. II, Moscow Progress PublishersMarx, K. 1969. Theories of Surplus Value, vol. 2, Moscow Progress Publishers.Marx, K. 1971. Theories of Surplus Value, vol. 3, Moscow Progress Publishers.Ricardo, D. 1951-73. The Works and remainder of David Ricardo, 11 volumes, edited by Piero Sraffa with the collaboration of Maurice H. Dobb, Cambridge Cambridge University press. In the essay his volumes are referred as Works, volume matter page number.Schefold, B. 1976. Different Forms of Technical Progress, Economic Journal, 86 806-19Smith, A. 1976. An motion into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, two vols. In The Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspo ndence of Adam Smith, Ed. R. H. Campbell and A. S. Skinner, Oxford Oxford University Press.Stigler, G.1958. Ricardo and the 93% labor theory of value.American Economic Review 48,35767.Sweezy, P.1942.The Theory of Capitalist Development.New YorkMonthly Review Press.1