Source: Structure of American economy, 1919-1929, 1941, p. 74.
“In my essay I refuted the Hayek-Robbins argument by showing how a market mechanism could be established in a socialist economy which would lead to the solution of the simultaneous equations by means of an empirical procedure of trial and error. […] Were I to rewrite my essay today my task would be much simpler. My answer to Hayek and Robbins would be: so what’s the trouble?
Let us put the simultaneous equations on an electronic computer and we shall obtain the solution in less than a second. The market process with its cumbersome tatonnements appears old-fashioned. Indeed, it may be considered as a computing device of the preelectronic age.”
"The computer and the market" (1967)
Help us to complete the source, original and additional information
Oskar R. Lange 3
Polish economist 1904–1965Related quotes
Diophantos of Alexandria: A Study in the History of Greek Algebra (1885)
Hayek's Journey: The Mind of Friedrich Hayek (2003)
Arrow, Kenneth J., and Gerard Debreu. " Existence of an equilibrium for a competitive economy http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/P/cp/p00b/p0087.pdf." Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society (1954): p. 265
Source: 1950s-1960s, "Existence of an equilibrium for a competitive economy." 1954, p. 265
Michael Knipe, "Mr Smith agrees to majority rule coming within two years", The Times, September 25, 1976, p. 1.
Statement (September 24, 1976) on negotiations in South Africa which proposed a phased transition to majority rule.
"On one class of functional equations" (1936), as cited in: O'Connor, John J.; Robertson, Edmund F., " Leonid Kantorovich http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Kantorovich.html", MacTutor History of Mathematics archive, University of St Andrews
Source: What is Property? (1840), Ch. I: "Method Pursued in this Work. The Idea of a Revolution"
Context: If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required to show that the power to take from a man his thought, his will, his personality, is a power of life and death; and that to enslave a man is to kill him. Why, then, to this other question: What is property! may I not likewise answer, It is robbery, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first?
I undertake to discuss the vital principle of our government and our institutions, property: I am in my right. I may be mistaken in the conclusion which shall result from my investigations: I am in my right. I think best to place the last thought of my book first: still am I in my right.
Blog post http://bad-mother.blogspot.com/2005/02/end.html
Regarding blogging