在經济学界,我們經济学家对以往作家的評价是和外界完全不同的。最早从亚当·斯密談起,我想人們把他当做一个經济理論家,未免評价过低了,在我看来,他是登峰造极的人物。李嘉图是經济学家当中最最評价过高的人,他是个严密的論証家,但是把他所探討的問题搞得乱七八糟,而讀者却感到他神通广大,因为他能从这种困境中解脱出来。在分析分面,他的地租理論是极好的,但显然不比魏斯特和馬尔薩斯的地租理論更好一些或更早一些。他的一般均衡模型,不过是馬尔薩斯和斯密人口論中原有的东西。他的最大成就是比较利益理論,然而,托倫斯上校差不多在同一时期进行了几乎同样的分析。在凯恩斯看来,“李嘉图思想是对經济学提供的最偉大思想,”这个看法同我对他的大的智商或創造性的評价,是不相符合的。穆勒甚至在1838年古諾提出确定的部分均衡公式以前就創建了供求的一般均衡概念,但是除了真正爱好經济理論的人承认它是对經济分析的卓越貢献以外,几乎所有其他人都忽视了。穆勒是折衷主义,当新的事实或論证出現时或只是重新考虑旧的想法时,他会毅然改变他的思想。从純經济理論的观点来看,馬克思是后李嘉图派的一个次要人物。他是里昂节夫投入一产出分析的有趣先驅者,象《通論》那样的消費不足論,他也独自提出过一些含糊的意見。他把技术变化和資本积累同商业循环联系在一起,这又倾向于图干-巴兰諾斯基等人的学说。馬克思是他的时代的一个很糟糕的計量經济学家,他不了解西欧实际工資由于新的技术和設备而提高了多少;他是一个拙劣的理論家,因为他提出的那种模型几乎肯定要引起表格的移动,从而大大提高工人的工資。专门的經济学同馬克思在人类思想史上所起的重要作用是没有关系的。馬歇尔作为政治經济学家,是新古典学派的典型。現在他也許过时了,然而在他的时代,他却是一个了不起的人物。他的门徒占有英国政治經济学讲座的半数,他的影响扩展到其他半数,而就方法論来说,今天我們都是馬歇尔派。 In the field of economics, our economists’ assessment of previous writers is totally different from that of the outside world. Speaking from Adam Smith first, I think people regarded him as an economic theorist, too low rating, in my opinion, he is the culmination of the character. Ricardo, the most highly appraised of economists, was a rigorous arguer, but he confused the issues he was discussing, and readers felt he was supernatural because he could escape from this dilemma. In analyzing the facets, his theory of rent is excellent, but apparently no better or earlier than the rent theory of Vieste and Malthus. His general equilibrium model is nothing but the original thing in Malthus and Smith’s population theory. His greatest achievement was the theory of comparative advantage; however, Colonel Torrens conducted almost the same analysis almost at the same time. In Keynes’s view, “Ricardo’s thought is the greatest idea of ​​economics,” which is not in accordance with my assessment of his great IQ or creativity. Mueller even created the general equilibrium notion of supply and demand even before Cournot proposed a partial equilibrium in 1838, but almost everyone else ignored it, except those who truly fancied economic theory, who recognized it as an outstanding contribution to economic analysis . Mill is eclectic, and resolutely changes his mind when new facts or arguments emerge or merely reconsider the old ideas. From a purely economic point of view, Marx is a secondary figure in the post-Ricardist school. He was a fascinating pioneer of Lyon’s involvement in a production output analysis, and he also made some vague opinions on his own, such as the General Theory of Consumption Deficiency. He linked technological change and capital accumulation with the business cycle, which in turn favors the doctrine of Tugan-Baranowski et al. Marx, a terrible econometrician of his time, did not know how much real wages in Western Europe had been increased with new technology and equipment; he was a crooked theorist because the model he proposed was almost certain To cause the movement of forms, thereby greatly increasing the wages of workers. Specialized economics has nothing to do with the important role that Marx plays in the history of human thought. As a political economist, Marshall is typical of the neoclassical school. Now he may be out of date, but in his time, he was a remarkable person. His disciples occupied half of British political economy lectures, his influence expanded to the other half, and in terms of methodology, we are all Marshall factions today.