But it cannot be too strongly insisted, in the first place, that only particular ratios, market relations, can come out of the individualistic analysis of satisfactions of consumption and dissatisfactions of production, and that, in the second place, these ratios, and this relativity, are but surface explanations, that point to, and are based upon, something underlying and definite—without which they would be hanging in the air.[75]
FOOTNOTES:
[61] See Jevons, Theory of Pol. Econ., 3d ed., pp. 88-90; 95-96.
[62] See, especially, Pareto, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 36-37.
[63] Our question here is primarily a logical, and not a psychological, one, else I should choose a different term from "feeling-magnitude." For the present, I am accepting the Austrian psychology, and attacking the Austrian logic. Cf. the chapter in this work on the psychology of value.
[64] Op. cit., pp. 300, 312, 313 et seq., 320, 325, n., 327, 328 n., 329, and chap. xvii.
[65] Principles, 1898 ed., p. 176.
[66] Op. cit., p. 300.
[67] Principles of Economics, London, 1902, p. 57.
[68] Page 18, "The consumption of all the individuals in a community or nation can also be represented by this diagram if their feelings, sentiments, and habits are nearly enough alike to create a normal type."—A statement which is defensible only if "habits" be stretched to include incomes! See, also, pp. 28 (diagram) and 82.