But many writers have spoken of the influence exerted on wages by a rise, not in the standard of but in that of —a term that may suggest a mere increase of artificial wants, among which perhaps the grosser wants may predominate. It is true that every broad improvement in the standard of comfort is likely to bring with it a better manner of living, and to open the way to new and higher activities; while people who have hitherto had neither the necessaries nor the decencies of life, can hardly fail to get some increase of vitality and energy from an increase of comfort, however gross and material the view which they may take of it. Thus a rise in the standard of comfort will probably involve some rise in the standard of life; and, in so far as this is the case, it tends to increase the national dividend and to improve the condition of the people.
I am planning to appear on MA Eco entrance exam of DSE and JNU. I live in Noida. But since it is very difficult for me to go to JNU on a working day within working hours, could anyone please suggest if the past papers of JNU (and DSE) are available in any other place where I can go and get them “after office hours”???? I shall be very grateful for your advice.
I am a DCE (Delhi College of Engg) grad with 6 yrs work ex doing relatively well in may career. I have developed a longing to study economics and want to study MA, Phd in Eco. I am right now preparing for Option B for DSE. How competitive is it for me since I really am studying more or less from scratch and I think I will be competing against maths honors. Would I be better off taking option A? Also, where can I get sample papers for Option B.
The suggestion has, however, no significance so far as normal values are concerned. For normal cost of production and normal cost of reproduction are convertible terms; and no real change is made by saying that the normal value of a thing tends to equal its normal (money) cost of reproduction instead of its normal (money) cost of production. The former phrase is less simple than the latter, but means the same thing.
Though I hav not taken the exam but I hav seen the sample paper & spoken to students of the college. it seems written is not tough, it’s diluted version of CAT paper
For maths u need to practice that of class 11th & 12th
though only one & half month is left, i am pretty sure it can be cracked.
The objections raised by some philosophers to speaking of two pleasures as equal, under any circumstances, seem to apply only to uses of the phrase other than those with which the economist is concerned. It has however unfortunately happened that the customary uses of economic terms have sometimes suggested the belief that economists are adherents of the philosophical system of Hedonism or of Utilitarianism. For, while they have generally taken for granted that the greatest pleasures are those which come with the endeavour to do one's duty, they have spoken of "pleasures" and "pains" as supplying the motives to all action; and they have thus brought themselves under the censure of those philosophers, with whom it is a matter of principle to insist that the desire to do one's duty is a different thing from a desire for the pleasure which, if one happens to think of the matter at all, one may expect from doing it; though perhaps it may be not incorrectly described as a desire for "self-satisfaction" or "the satisfaction of the permanent self." (See for instance T. H. Green, pp. 165-6.)
Now an improvement of Ricardo's first class will increase the return to the dose applied under the most favourable conditions from to ', and the returns to other doses, not in like but by equal The result is that the new produce curve '' will be a repetition of the old produce curve but raised higher than it by the distance '. If, therefore, there were an unlimited demand for corn, so that the old number of doses, could be profitably applied, the aggregate Corn surplus would remain the same as before the change. But in fact such an immediate increase of production could not be profitable; and therefore an improvement of this kind must necessarily lessen the aggregate Corn surplus. And on the assumption made here by Ricardo that the aggregate produce is not increased at all, only ' doses will be applied, ' being determined by the condition that ''' is equal to and the aggregate Corn surplus will shrink down to '''. This result is independent of the shape of and, which is the same thing, of the particular figures selected for the numerical illustration which Ricardo used in proof of his argument.
And here we may take the occasion to remark that numerical instances can as a rule be safely used only as illustrations and not as proofs: for it is generally more difficult to know whether the result has been implicitly assumed in the numbers shown for the special case than it is to determine independently whether the result is true or not. Ricardo himself had no mathematical training. But his instincts were unique; and very few trained mathematicians could tread as safely as he over the most perilous courses of reasoning. Even the acute logical mind of Mill was unequal to the task.
These two sets of surpluses are not independent: and it would be easy to reckon them up so as to count the same thing twice. For when we have reckoned the producer's surplus at the value of the general purchasing power which he derives from his labour or saving, we have reckoned implicitly his consumer's surplus too, provided his character and the circumstances of his environment are given. This difficulty might be avoided analytically; but in no case would it be practically possible to estimate and add up the two series. The consumer's surplus, the worker's surplus, and the saver's surplus, which anyone is capable of deriving from his surroundings, depend on his individual character. They depend in part on his general sensibility to the satisfactions and dissatisfactions of consumption and of working and waiting severally; and in part also on the elasticity of his sensibilities, that is, on the rates at which they change with an increase of consumption, of work and of waiting respectively. Consumer's surplus has relation in the first instance to individual commodities, and each part of it responds directly to changes in the conjuncture affecting the terms on which that commodity is to be had: while the two kinds of producer's surplus appear always in terms of the general return that the conjuncture gives to a certain amount of purchasing power. The two kinds of producer's surplus are independent and cumulative, and they stand out distinct from one another in the case of a man working and saving things for his own use. The intimate connection between both of them and consumer's surplus is shown by the fact that, in estimating the weal and woe in the life of a Robinson Crusoe, it would be simplest to reckon his producer's surpluses on such a plan as to include the whole of his consumer's surplus.
It is indeed often thought that, though those workers who have little or no accumulated wealth of their own, have much to gain by an increase of the capital in that narrower sense of the term in which it is nearly convertible with trade capital that supports and aids them in their work; yet they have little to gain from an increase of other forms of wealth not in their own hands. No doubt there are a few kinds of wealth the existence of which scarcely affects the working classes; while they are directly affected by almost every increase of (trade) capital. For the greater part of it passes through their hands as implements or materials of their work; while a considerable part is directly used or even consumed by them. It seems therefore that the working classes must necessarily gain when other forms of wealth become trade capital and But it is not so. If private people generally gave up keeping carriages and yachts, and hired them out from capitalist undertakers, there would result a smaller demand for hired labour. For part of what would have been paid as wages would go as profits to a middleman.
After a while Cairnes, in his endeavoured to resuscitate the Wages-fund theory by expounding it in a form, which he thought would evade the attacks that had been made on it. But, though in the greater part of his exposition, he succeeded in avoiding the old pitfalls, he did so only by explaining away so much which is characteristic of the doctrine, that there is very little left in it to justify its title. He states however (p. 203) that "the rate of wages, other things being equal, varies inversely with the supply of labour." His argument is valid in regard to the immediate result of a great increase in the supply of labour. But in the ordinary course of the growth of population there results simultaneously, not only some increase in the supply of capital, but also greater subdivision of labour, and more efficiency. His use of the term "varies inversely" is misleading. He should have said "varies for the time at least in the opposite direction." He goes on to derive an "unexpected consequence," that an increase in the supply of labour, when it is of a kind to be used in conjunction with fixed capital and raw material, would cause the Wages-fund to undergo "diminution as the number who are to share it is increased." But that result would follow only if the aggregate of wages were not influenced by the aggregate of production; and in fact this last cause is the most powerful of all those which influence wages.