Professor Fisher's Interest Theory: A Case in Point
1931; University of Chicago Press; Volume: 39; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1086/254196
ISSN1537-534X
Autores Tópico(s)Economic theories and models
ResumoPrevious articleNext article No AccessProfessor Fisher's Interest Theory: A Case in PointFrank H. KnightFrank H. KnightPDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of Political Economy Volume 39, Number 2Apr., 1931 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/254196 Views: 8Total views on this site Citations: 15Citations are reported from Crossref PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:David Cowan The Grand Crusade, (Jun 2016): 75–98.https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-46211-4_3Arash Molavi Vasséi Recursive utility, increasing impatience and capital deepening: F.A. Hayek's 'utility analysis and interest', The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 22, no.66 (Oct 2015): 1000–1041.https://doi.org/10.1080/09672567.2015.1084521Arash Molavi Vasssi Endogenous Time Preference and Optimal Capital Deepening: A Rational Reconstruction of F. A. Hayek's Capital Theory, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2014).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2436822G C Harcourt Whatever Happened to the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversies? (2003), (Jan 2012): 112–130.https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230348653_6AVI J. COHEN CAPITAL CONTROVERSY FROM BÖHM-BAWERK TO BLISS: BADLY POSED OR VERY DEEP QUESTIONS? OR WHAT "WE" CAN LEARN FROM CAPITAL CONTROVERSY EVEN IF YOU DON'T CARE WHO WON, Journal of the History of Economic Thought 32, no.11 (Feb 2010): 1–21.https://doi.org/10.1017/S105383720999040XA. Cohen, G. Harcourt Whatever Happened to the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversies? (With comments by L. Pasinetti, F. Fisher, J. Felipe and J. McCombie, R. Greenfield and reply by the authors), Voprosy Ekonomiki , no.88 (Aug 2009): 4–27.https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2009-8-4-27Avi J. Cohen The Kaldor/Knight controversy: Is capital a distinct and quantifiable factor of production?, The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 13, no.11 (Aug 2006): 141–161.https://doi.org/10.1080/09672560500522801Annie L. Cot "Breed Out the Unfit and Breed In the Fit". Irving Fisher, Economics, and the Science of Heredity, American Journal of Economics and Sociology 64, no.33 (Jul 2005): 793–826.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1536-7150.2005.00392.xSandra J. Peart, David M. Levy Denying Human Homogeneity: Eugenics & The Making of Post-Classical Economics, Journal of the History of Economic Thought 25, no.33 (Jun 2009): 261–288.https://doi.org/10.1080/1042771032000114728Avi J Cohen, G. C Harcourt Retrospectives Whatever Happened to the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversies?, Journal of Economic Perspectives 17, no.11 (Feb 2003): 199–214.https://doi.org/10.1257/089533003321165010Kofi Kissi Dompere A fuzzy-decision theory of optimal social discount rate: Collective-choice-theoretic, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 58, no.33 (Sep 1993): 279–301.https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(93)90504-BR. A. Gonce F. H. Knight on Capitalism and Freedom, Journal of Economic Issues 26, no.33 (Jan 2016): 813–844.https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.1992.11505332Wilfredo Santiago Valiente Is Frank Knight the Victor in the Controversy Between the two Cambridges?, History of Political Economy 12, no.11 (Mar 1980): 41–64.https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-12-1-41 Arthur H. Leigh Frank H. Knight as Economic Theorist, Journal of Political Economy 82, no.33 (Oct 2015): 578–586.https://doi.org/10.1086/260214EDWARD T. PRICE VALUES AND CONCEPTS IN CONSERVATION, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 45, no.11 (Mar 1955): 64–84.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1955.tb01483.x
Referência(s)