English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Schumpeter chastised Ricardo for his alleged "vice" - the so-called "Ricardian Vice" - of drawing far reaching policy conclusions from utterly simplistic models, which, moreover, were underdetermined. The paper first argues that Schumpeter saw Ricardo's approach to the theory of value and distribution through a marginalist lens and therefore arrived at a distorted picture of the latter. Several of the criticisms he levelled at Ricardo cannot be sustained. The paper then has a closer look at Schumpeter's pronouncements on economic policy issues and shows that in a number of respects his views did not differ that much from Ricardo's and in some respects were remarkably similar. This concerns especially the problem of paying off the public debt, with regard to which both Ricardo after the Napoleonic Wars and Schumpeter after World War I advocated a once for all capital levy.

Is there a “Ricardian Vice”? And what is its relationship with economic policy ad“vice”?