Overview of the Malthus-Ricardo Debate

Overview of the Malthus-Ricardo Debate The world known controversy between the Malthus and Ricardo has long been considered as a source of history for economic thought. But no one try to investigate this as a polemical dialogical exchange (Glyn, 2006). The present study is undertaken to fill this gap within the framework of a more ambitious project that places controversies at the center of an account of the history of ideas, in science and elsewhere. According to my views the dialogical co-text is essential for comparing and contrasting the Malthus and Ricardo views about different economic perspectives. The initial step towards analyzing these controversies is the analysis of their backgrounds. Because backgrounds are essential part to investigate the real story of Ricardo Malthus debate. Then we shall move towards the comparison of their views towards different economic perspectives (Cremaschi Dascal, 1998). Malthus was born in 1766, in the core of troubled but optimistic period. He was the younger son of his father, Daniel Malthus. His father was a gentleman from good family background. Daniel Malthus has some sort of intellectual statutory into his personality. Malthus was born into an English family that belongs to the gentry of the country. Malthus was having the disadvantage of stammering by birth. Due to this defect he has to face huge difficulties in selecting his profession. This natural disability was the major constraint in the Malthus career choice (Cremaschi Dascal, 1998). As a student Malthus was a boy with excellent academic career. He was pride for his teachers. He performed distinctions, got scholarships and selected as fellow of Trinity College. Malthus lived a relatively placid life. During his stay in the Trinity college, he began to develop the perfectibility and of philosophic anarchism in him. He also learned about the rationality and how men and women could learn to live rationally through their whole life and can accomplish their lives (Cremaschi Dascal, 1998). The first edition of his essay in 1798 made him famous in the age of 32. The essay got hatred from some sections of community due to its deriding the hopes for progress and arguing about the futility of charity to children. The below passage can clearly portrays the Malthus View of human progress, â€Å"The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors of the army of destruction; and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and ten thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow, levels the population with the food of the world† In these excerpts Malthus made it clear that overpopulation can be disastrous for the mankind. His argument was totally against the Godwin’s faith in the ability to rule the rationality as supplant the principle of overpopulation (Glyn,2006). David Ricardo was born six years after Malthus and to a very different station in life. Ricardo’s father was a broker who had been migrated from Amsterdam to London just few years before the birth of Ricardo. His father joined the Jewish community and Ricardo was sent to Jewish school in Amsterdam to get proper education when he became old enough. HE returned to London in age of fourteen and start taking interest in his father’s business. Due to controversy between Ricardo and his parents, he had to leave the house. After quitting house, Ricardo opt the trade profession, the only professions he knows. He quickly proved himself to be the Boy Wonder of Thread needle Street. Till the age of thirty he collected enough wealth and get bored from this accumulation of wealth. So he started turning his mind towards other things like economics (Rashid,1981). Economics was the major thing which he adopted after leaving the wealth accumulation. In 1799 he read the Wealth of nations and this inspired him too much to continuously read and think about the economics. Ricardo took participate to solve he inflation crisis in the parliament. This and some of the other major events e.g. depreciation of led to the first meeting between David Ricardo and Malthus. And from the very first meeting they became good friends. They were good friends but they could never long out for each other’s minds. Below are the major controversies of their thought and views on some major theories and perspectives. The Corn Laws Controversy The extraordinary collaboration of their thoughts emerged after few years of their initial encounter. The occasions were the controversy over the Corn Laws. Corn Laws were about the variable tariffs and export subsidies which were levied to protect and promote the English agriculture. In the times of Napoleonic Wars, farm prices were specifically high due to the coincidence of wartime demand. After war ended, the economic destabilization caused due to some bumper crops. This destabilization lowered the wheat prices by 50% in 1812-1815. Tariff protection was necessary tool to protect the agriculture demand. This was the major debate of that time. Malthus and Ricardo first time entered into the public debate from opposite sides over this issue. The debate is the basis for the formulation of rent theory of Malthus and Ricardian elaboration of rent theory of Malthus. The argument served as kernel for the establishment of the political economy and taxation. Ricardo was of the view that with the growth of country’s population, capital or wealth would be accumulated and this can cause the farming prices to fall. As the farmers have to resort to least productive land. This would also cause to fall down the general profit rates for agriculture in the economy. Malthus completely disagrees with this conclusion of Ricardo. He published his observation on the Corn Laws in the form of pamphlet. This pamphlet was the review of advantages as well as disadvantages of imposing tariff on imported agricultural commodities. Malthus was of the view that retaining the high tariffs on corn is necessary for its protection. Malthus argued that protection of Corn Laws is vital for protecting the English Agriculture as ways improving the vitality of English ways and institutions. Ricardo Continuously argued about the adverse effects of the population growth and capital accumulation due to protection of rents which was supported by Malthus. Ricardo argued against the Malthus concept of rent vehemently that Future success of the English economy depends upon the progress of industries which is being stifled through Corn laws. Ricardo argument about Corn Laws can be concluded as â€Å"If, then, the prosperity of the commercial classes will most certainly lead to accumulation of capital, and the encouragement of productive industry; these can by no means be so surely obtained as by a fall in the price of corn.† Although this debate did not lead them towards making any final theory about the policy issues, but it provided the strong basis for theory of national income. There were some similarities in their arguments too. They both relied upon the population theory while explaining level of real wages. Malthus theory of rent was focal point of Ricardo and Malthus arguments. They both recognized that rate of profit in agriculture can be determined through the productivity of the marginal land which is cultivated. Thus they include the marginal productivity into economic thoughts although in limited manner. They also agreed that rate of profit had to be the same in all industries where competition prevailed. Thus all the ingredients of Ricardian distribution and growth theory were in place and agreed upon. The Gluts Controversy The next controversial debate between Ricardo and Malthus was one the â€Å"gluts†. After the Waterloo English economy slumped into severe postwar depression called as glut. They were thinking about the possible solution to mitigate this challenge. Ricardo perceived that condition of general overproduction is impossible without the transiently. To balanced the oversupply of one commodity shortage of other commodity in necessary. Malthus argued about hat point that total demand can be smaller than the total output. But working population and other resources could produce if fully employed. The working population is able to buy subsistence only. If the well-off classes were too abstemious, the prices of luxuries could fall to the point where there was no profit in producing them, and glut would ensue. In the extreme, Malthus pointed out, if everyone lived on a subsistence scale there would have to be a vast oversupply of commodities since each worker could produce much more than bare subsistence for himself and his family. This debate was revived hundred years after the death of both the Malthus and Ricardo. Malthus devoted the final chapter of his book to the issue of glut and the need for a class of unproductive consumers who would provide the demand that would keep the rest of the economy employed profitably. Malthus pointed out those English landed gentry was the exception ally that is well equipped to fulfill that function. Ricardo holds the argument that â€Å" I can see no soundness in the reasons you give for the usefulness of demand on the part of unproductive consumers. How their consuming, without reproducing, can be beneficial to a country, in any possible state of it, I confess I cannot discover.(Glyn, 2006) The Value Controversy All the while that Malthus and Ricardo were arguing about the Corn Laws and the nature of gluts, they were conducting a third interminable dispute. This one concerned the definition, measurement, and cause of value. From our perspective, the concern over value, which extended from Adam Smith to Stanley Jevons at least, was a great waste of words and time. But Malthus, Ricardo, and their contemporaries took it very seriously, and with some reason (Rashid, 1981). They had enough experience with inflations, crop failures and bumper crops, and other economic disturbances to recognize that money prices fluctuated too erratically to indicate long-run relation-ships or to reveal underlying trends. They believed that each commodity had a property that, following Adam Smith, they called its natural value, which explained the ratio of its money price to the prices of other commodities (Glyn, 2006). Both Ricardo and Malthus agreed upon this fact but when they define the natural value they were devising to measure it in practice. In devising the endless practice, they too became engaged in the debate. The debate was about the practical measurement of values of the commodities. In this perspective, Ricardo argued that there is no tool for measuring the value of commodities. Instead the natural values of the commodities can be expressed in terms of approximation by comparing with the precious metals (O’Brian, 1981). In this scenario, Malthus advocated that values of the commodities can be measured by using the cost of labor (wages). This can be done of the grounds that there should be equal quantity of labor for measuring the natural as well as absolute value (Glyn, 2006). Malthus-Ricardo debate on under consumption Malthuss under consumption theory of business recession be summarized as follows; ‘If producers have not anticipated a fall in consumption demand, they will not be able to sell their products at a price that yields a normal rate of return. Discouraged by their losses, these producers will scale down their production levels and engage in less investment than they would otherwise. As a result, an under consumptions business recession ensues: Ricardo took the Malthus remarks as most important part for his principals. He responded the under consumption theory in two different ways (O’Brian, 1981). These are; Statement of effects: The first response was in the form that he did not understand the Malthus theory. The reason for this was that Ricardo was anticipating a model type system which he could not find the under consumption theory. Direct criticism: The other response was in the form of direct denigration on the Malthus theory. Ricardo found it difficult to hold completely the Malthus theory. Ricardo separated the conclusions for the theory and criticizes them. He criticizes the defects in the reasoning (O’Brian, 1981). One conclusion not satisfying the Ricardo was general access of supply termed as glut. Ricardo argued that any excess supply can be balanced by demands. Malthus argued about hat point that total demand can be smaller than the total output. But working population and other resources could produce if fully employed. The working population is able to buy subsistence only. If the well-off classes were too abstemious, the prices of luxuries could fall to the point where there was no profit in producing them, and glut would ensue. In the extreme, Malthus pointed out, if everyone lived on a subsistence scale there would have to be a vast oversupply of commodities since each worker could produce much more than bare subsistence for himself and his family. This debate was revived hundred years after the death of both the Malthus and Ricardo. It can be concluded that Malthus and Ricardo were good friends who could never agree with each other on economic matters. Their first controversy was about the Corn Laws. Corn Laws were about the variable tariffs and export subsidies which were levied to protect and promote the English agriculture. In the times of Napoleonic Wars, farm prices were specifically high due to the coincidence of wartime demand. Malthus completely disagrees with this conclusion of Ricardo. He published his observation on the Corn Laws in the form of pamphlet. This pamphlet was the review of advantages as well as disadvantages of imposing tariff on imported agricultural commodities. Malthus was of the view that retaining the high tariffs on corn is necessary for its protection. Malthus argued that protection of Corn Laws is vital for protecting the English Agriculture as ways improving the vitality of English ways and institutions (O’Brian, 1981). Ricardo Continuously argued about the adverse effects of the population growth and capital accumulation due to protection of rents which was supported by Malthus. Ricardo argued against the Malthus concept of rent vehemently that Future success of the English economy depends upon the progress of industries which is being stifled through Corn Laws. The other major controversy was on the glut issue. There were good reasons why they could never agree. One of the reasons for their continuous conflict was that they were born and bred in two different cultures and traditions. The adopted the economics after getting through different occupations and preconceptions. These conceptions shaped their views and thinking about Corn Laws and glut controversies (Glyn, 2006). In the extreme, Malthus pointed out, if everyone lived on a subsistence scale there would have to be a vast oversupply of commodities since each worker could produce much more than bare subsistence for himself and his family. This debate was revived hundred years after the death of both the Malthus and Ricardo. Malthus devoted the final chapter of his book to the issue of glut and the need for a class of unproductive consumers who would provide the demand that would keep the rest of the economy employed profitably Although they brought up in two different cultures and modes, Ricardo was quick, brilliant and concise while Malthus was moderate and motivated. Although Ricardo as the archetypical theorist while Malthus was the practical economists. Ricardo favors the clean and simple cases while Malthus developed its thoughts from the rich and complex economic life. This is not the strange that they could not agree each other but simple thing is that they could not stand each other. Their differences arise in their mind sets, collaborations, cultures and perceptions. This can be reflected through their collaborations and friendships. Both Ricardo and Malthus agreed upon this fact but when they define the natural value they were devising to measure it in practice. In devising the endless practice, they too became engaged in the debate. The debate was about the practical measurement of values of the commodities.Their struggles to convey to each other their views of the forces that drove their economy are an inspiring case study in both the difficulty and the possibility of human communication. They were best friends who could not satisfy each other through their arguments and judgments. And they could never minimize their differences. Their differences can be more visibly seen from their writings, speeches and manuscripts and analysis. There are some similarities in their analysis too but mainly there was differences and opposite arguments about certain economic t heories. But their differences and opposite arguments gave the most valuable analysis of modern economic theories. The long debate help to view the economic theories from every perspectives. References Cremaschi, S., Dascal, M. (1998). Persuasion and argument in the Malthus-Ricardo correspondence.Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 1-64. Cremaschi, S., Dascal, M. (1998). Malthus and Ricardo: Two styles for economic theory.Science in Context,11(02), 229-254. Dascal, M., Cremaschi, S. (1999). The Malthus-Ricardo correspondence: Sequential structure, argumentative patterns, and rationality.Journal of pragmatics,31(9), 1129-1172. Glyn, A. (2006). The corn model, gluts and surplus value.Cambridge Journal of Economics,30(2), 307-312. OBrien, D. P. (1981). Ricardian economics and the economics of David Ricardo.Oxford Economic Papers, 352-386. Richerson, P. J., Boyd, R. (1998). Homage to Malthus, Ricardo, and Boserup Toward a General Theory of Population, Economic Growth, Environmental Deterioration, Wealth, and Poverty.Human Ecology Review,4, 85-90. Rashid, S. (1981). Malthus Principles and British economic thought, 1820–1835.History of Political Economy,13(1), 55-79.

The Use of Appetite Suppressants Essays -- Health Diet Weight Loss Ess

The Use of Appetite Suppressants In the past two decades, Americans and most of the Western world have become obsessed with losing weight. Countless diets, weight loss strategies and gimmicks have been and remain on the market and cost Americans billions of dollars every year. The media perpetuates this ideal of thinness and so people continue in desperate attempts to shrink their bodies. People have gone to extreme measures such as stomach stapling, liposuction and starvation diets to try and take off excess weight. Many Americans are willing to do whatever is necessary to look a certain way, no matter what the cost. Sometimes these costs outweigh the benefits of losing weight. Oftentimes, when people diet and lose weight, they end up going off the diet and gaining the weight back. This leads to a perpetual cycle of yo -yo dieting. Nevertheless, the quest for losing weight remains a priority in many people’s lives. One of the options that many people have taken in attempt to lose weight is the ingestion of various appetite suppressants. The logic behind this is that if one takes an appetite suppressant, they wont feel hungry. Without hunger, the person will ingest less food and by ingesting less food, the person will lose weight. The concept is actually quite simple and has been around for many years. Hunger is â€Å"the physiological need of an animal for food (Lasagna, p.132).† Appetite, on the other hand, is â€Å"the psychological motivation for food intake- which is independent of the individual’s nutritional state (Lasagna, p.132).† An appetite suppressant attempts to lessen a person’s psychological motivation for food, even though there might be a need for food intake for nutritional reasons. Phenylpropanolamine, ... ...rs. New York, N.Y. Morgan, J.P. (1986). Phenylpropanolamine: A critical Analysis of Reported Adverse Reactions and Overdosage. Jack. K. Burgess, Inc. Fort Lee, N.J. Fillmore, C. M. et al. (1999). Nutrition and Dietary Supplements, Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am, 10, (3), 673-703. Silverstone, T. (1986). Clinical Use of Appetite Suppressants, Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 17, (2-3), 151-167. Wellman, P.J. (1990). A Review of the physiological bases of the anorexic action of phenylpropanolamine, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 14 (3), 339-355. Greenway, F.L. (1992). Clinical Studies with phenylpropanolamine: a metaanalysis, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 55, 203-205. Alger, S. et al. (1993). Effect of Phenylpropanolamine on energy expenditure and weight loss in overweight women, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 57, 120-126.

Macbeth’s Misunderstanding of Evil

Macbeth, one of Shakespeare’s most well-known plays, captivates the audience and readers with a unique plot and note worthy characters. Of these characters, Macbeth, not unaffected by evil, an internal or external force that compels an individual to do harm to others, ultimately reaches self-devastation by his own hand. His choices lead him to do so. Macbeth, the tragic hero of the play, allows his flaw of misunderstanding of evil guide him to destruction. As the tragic hero of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, Macbeth is perceived a character with values. Shakespeare portrays him as a tragic hero, having one flaw, but primarily an honorable character. In act 1 a servant tells about Macbeth’s experiences on the battle field. The servant relaying the events of the battle to the king refers to Macbeth as â€Å"For brave Macbeth-well he deserves that name (2). † This shows that others view Macbeth as being brave. Macbeth, also said to be â€Å"Like valour’s minion (2),† clearly can be seen as courageous because he models himself based on heroism and bravery. Macbeth â€Å"unseam’d [the enemy] from the nave to the chaps,/ And fix’d his head upon our battlements (2). † This shows Macbeth’s strength and power in battle. It also displays his loyalty to the king because he kills the enemy. Macbeth, being brave, strong, and loyal, is a decent and wholesome character. Although Macbeth exists as a note worth character, he misunderstands evil and this flaw leads to his demise. In act one Shakespeare shows Macbeth’s curiosity in the witches who are the epitome of evil. When the three witches tell Macbeth that he can potentially be the Thane of Cawdor and the King of Scotland, he wonders how and requests more information from the witches. Macbeth’s speech reveals that he has much interest in what the supernatural powers of the witches can tell him. When he says, â€Å"Stay you imperfect speakers, tell me more (6)† he asks them to give him more information about how he can become thane and king. He believes that the witches are giving him useful information and he has faith that he will prosper if he listens. Macbeth also displays his curiosity when he says, â€Å"and to be king/ Stands not within the prospect of belief,/ No more than to be Cawdor. Say from whence/ You owe this strange intelligence? (6)† He wonders how he can become king and inquires about the witches’ source of information. This shows that he believes that good can come from evil. Macbeth does have ambition, but he has ambition only because he misreads the witches’ intentions. His ambition causes him to want to be thane of Cawdor and king of Scotland, but the misunderstanding of evil causes him to believe that his dreams of being more powerful can come true. After continuing to misunderstand evil Macbeth finally fully commits to evil in act three. Shakespeare shows his audience that Macbeth has made a choice to stay with evil because he has faith that evil is getting him where he wants to be. In act 3Macbeth admits that he is looking forward to hearing the rest of the witches’ prophecies. In scene three he has made a commitment to evil. He acknowledges the fact that righting his wrongs can be possible, but because he believes being evil will gain him power, he chooses to continue on the path of the murderous actions he has already taken. When Macbeth says, â€Å"More shall they speak, for now I am bent to know, By the worst means, the worst (46). † he is revealing that he would like to hear the witches’ predictions and find out what he has to do in order to move himself further up the social ladder. When he says, â€Å"I am in blood Stepp’d in so far that, should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o’er (46)† he is committing to evil. He believes that turning back to good could be possible, but he chooses to follow the witches’ prophecy because he believes that good will come out of his evil actions. His ambition and excessive pride do play a role in causing him to commit to evil, but he only takes on those other characteristics because he misunderstands the wicked forces working against him. After committing to evil, Macbeth realizes that his life no longer has value and therefore does not have a life worth living. Shakespeare breaks the mold of tragic heroes’ demises being their downfall with Macbeth. Macbeth’s demise is that he now has an empty life. It finally occurs to Macbeth that he lives a life that does not posses any qualities that give meaning to life, when he says, â€Å"I have lived long enough: my way of life/ Is fall’n into the sear (73)† he comes to the conclusion that he now lives a wicked life that will propel him towards being condemned to Hell. He also says, â€Å"the which should accompany old age,/ As honour, love, obedience, troops of friends,/ I must not look to have (73),† at which point he realizes that his life no longer has any meaning because he has no honor, emotion, self control, or loyal friends. These are the things that make life worth living, and because none of these qualities are preserved within him he approaches his downfall rapidly. Macbeth’s downfall, being that he lives a meaningless life, is proof that an individual’s fate is the direct result of the choices he makes. Shakespeare’s theme in Macbeth, an individual can control his own fate by the choices he makes despite the temptations of supernatural forces, can be demonstrated by Macbeth choosing to commit to evil and as a result eventually having a fate worse than death. In the final act of the play Macbeth speaks of how he no longer has emotional reactions to events that would have previously aroused him. When he says, â€Å"my senses would have cool’d/ To hear a night-shriek (76)† he confesses that once before he would be nervous after hearing noises at night. Now that he has made many bad decisions he will never again react to a â€Å"night-shriek†. Macbeth also says, â€Å"Direness, familiar to my slaughterous thoughts,/ Cannot once start me (76). † Again he is saying that happenings that would have fazed him before he committed to evil will not faze him now. He has fated himself to become cold and callous. Throughout Macbeth, Macbeth is seen as a note worthy and honorable character. He has only shown one flaw, his misunderstanding of evil. His misunderstanding of evil ultimately leads to his own death. He acknowledges his flaw at the end of the play which proves that he is a tragic hero. Unfortunately, Macbeth caused his own death, due to his misunderstanding of evil.

The Victoria s Secret Catalog Never Stops Coming And...

The Victoria’s Secret Catalog Never Stops Coming and Other Lesson I Learned from Breast Cancer delivers an entertaining account and perspective on a young woman’s journey of surviving breast cancer. Nash’s account not only highlights the hardships and difficult decisions one must endure but focuses on the small lessons learned that lead to a more positive experience with breast cancer. The memoir is an excellent resource to women recently diagnosed with breast cancer, family of the recently diagnosed, and those just wanting to understand the hardships of the diagnosis. In reviewing the memoir, the principal criteria included content, organization, and tone. The average age of a woman to have a mammogram is forty. However, this was not the case for Jennie Nash. After, her college roommate Lisa was diagnosed with lung cancer, Nash developed what would be considered hypochondriac behavior. She focused on the idea that she was sick and had some sort of cancer as well due to a persisting pain in her left breast. Therefore at the age of thirty-six, she decided to get a mammogram. Even though Nash was young and had no history of breast cancer in her family, she found that the odds were not in her favor. At the age of thirty-six it was confirmed that her right breast was full of small malignant tumors. Nash was young, had to small children, and now breast cancer. At this point in the memoir, Nash shows the reader the horrors of being diagnosed with a life threatening disease that