IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rherxx/v77y2020i1p20-36.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Drop the Dead Donkey: A Response to Steven Kates on the Subject of Mill’s Fourth Proposition on Capital1

Author

Listed:
  • Roy H. Grieve

Abstract

Steven Kates has recently attempted to explain and justify J. S. Mill’s paradoxical ‘Fourth Proposition on Capital’, which states that ‘demand for commodities is not demand for labour’, a proposition which notoriously – over generations – has baffled many eminent commentators. Kates intended to resolve the puzzle by offering ‘a proper understanding of Say’s Law as it was understood by Mill and his contemporaries’. Nevertheless, we conclude that Kates fails to justify Mill’s position, depending as it does on the (Say’s Law) proposition that it is the availability of the means of ‘putting labour into motion’, not demand for output, that is critical in determining employment and production. But Mill, on whose wisdom Kates relies, in his famous ‘recantation’ of the wages-fund doctrine himself undermined the fourth proposition on capital by allowing that demand for commodities actually can induce investment in the employment of labour. It is time for a recantation from Kates.

Suggested Citation

  • Roy H. Grieve, 2020. "Drop the Dead Donkey: A Response to Steven Kates on the Subject of Mill’s Fourth Proposition on Capital1," History of Economics Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 77(1), pages 20-36, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rherxx:v:77:y:2020:i:1:p:20-36
    DOI: 10.1080/10370196.2020.1784650
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10370196.2020.1784650
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10370196.2020.1784650?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rherxx:v:77:y:2020:i:1:p:20-36. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rher .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.