Journal Article Further Notes on Elasticity of Substitution: III. The Question of Symmetry Get access A. P. Lerner A. P. Lerner Leon Fellow of the University of London London Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 3, Issue 2, February 1936, Pages 150–151, https://doi.org/10.2307/2967508 Published: 01 February 1936
Further Notes on Index Numbers: III. A Reply Get access A. P. Lerner A. P. Lerner London Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 3, Issue 2, February 1936, Pages 157–158, https://doi.org/10.2307/2967512 Published: 01 February 1936
Journal Article A Note on Socialist Economics Get access A. P. Lerner A. P. Lerner London School of Economics Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 4, Issue 1, October 1936, Pages 72–76, https://doi.org/10.2307/2967661 Published: 01 October 1936
Journal Article Commons's Institutionalism in Relation to Problems of Social Evolution and Economic Planning Get access Morris A. Copeland Morris A. Copeland University of Michigan Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 50, Issue 2, February 1936, Pages 333–346, https://doi.org/10.2307/1885027 Published: 01 February 1936
I. Professor Knight's argument, 199.— II. On some current misconceptions: 1. The investment periods and technological progress, 204; 2. They refer to factors, not products, 205; 3. The aggregate of such periods cannot be reduced to an average, nor is measurability essential, 206; 4. The periods refer always to the future, never to the past, 208; 5. The concept does not depend on a distinction between original and produced means of production, 209; 6. Nor is it only the original means of production whose investment periods can be changed, 209.— III. Professor Knight's criticism based on a misunderstanding, 210.— IV. His own position prevents him from giving any explanation of how the limitation of capital restricts the increase of output, 213.— V. An erroneous assertion following from his fundamental position: the value of capital goods when interest disappears, 222.— VI. Problems of capital and "perfect foresight, " 225.
I. Nature of data and of sample: 1. The SEC data on stock ownership, 622; 2. Choice of companies in sample, 624; 3. Limitations of the data, 628. — II. Proportion of stock outstanding owned by management: 1. Percentage of stock owned by management groups, 631; 2. The relation between total percentage holdings and size of management groups, 633; 3. The relation between percentage holdings and size of company, 635. — III. The market value of stock owned by management: 1. Individual value-holdings of leading executives, 640; 2. Average value-holdings of management groups, 644; 3. The relation between average value-holdings and size of firm, 650. — IV. Summary and conclusions, 650.
Journal Article The Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences Get access E. A. J. Johnson E. A. J. Johnson Cornell University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 50, Issue 2, February 1936, Pages 355–366, https://doi.org/10.2307/1885029 Published: 01 February 1936