Epstein Secrets

s present value of future pay less spending on future childhood nurture plus textbooks or tuition or job training (collectively called “schooling” by Mincer) invested in human capital. Ben-Porath knew that, as had others before, but reasoned that investment in anything must stop when not enough time remai

sses the baton to the next. Our investment horizon is the generation length. Its reciprocal, or one over that period, gives our time preference rate. Jevons also saw time preference as the reciprocal of the period of production, but did not connect that to the generation length. I adjust Petty’s estimate

implify. But I just showed why I model all consumption after, or anyhow after a few months of job training, as Schultz’ pure kind. Here I would fault Mincer and his pupil Becker, but not Schultz or Ben-Porath, for too much focus on the potential of job training. It exists and is crucial. But it is so smal

productive consumption theory developed from Malthus through Mill in 1848. It lapsed from attention with the marginalist revolution beginning with Jevons and Menger in 1871, ironically the year of publication of Darwin’s The Descent of Man, because the marginalists treated explanations of tastes as irr

ght have room for him. Am I being too tough on later economists? We should not forget Schultz and Ben- Porath. Schultz’ greatest achievement, unless Mincer beat him, was in spotlighting human depreciation. That left me to ask where this huge flow goes. The answer becomes inescapable once we focus on the

the two as intellectual equals. Mill seems a clear second, thanks to his superb paragraph on growth. The candidates for third seem well behind. Maybe Jevons or John Rae or Leon Walras. Time has not been kind to the teachings of Keynes. I would now rank his teacher Alfred Marshall higher. I like Myrdal’s m