Professor Hülsmann states Jevons and Walras think of value as a two-sided relationship between the human psyche and the impact of the marginal quantity of a good (in short Gossen’s 1. law).
Hülsmann then goes on and states Menger’s superior analytical approach to value. Value is a trilateral relationship involving an individual and (at least) two objects. In view of this we can easily forgive Mengers verbally two-sided definition of value. Mises later reformulates Menger.
To the point.
When speaking of Menger’s analytical superiority doesn’t Hülsmann conveniently abstract away the fact that Jevons and Walras concept of value is regulated by Gossen’s 2. law too (the rational consumer choice)? Thus Jevons and Walras …approach to value… become more than a mere two-sided relationship because the agent strives to maximize utility and makes decisions about multiple goods?
Im interested in bringing forth any real differences. Is it a fair treatment to say Jevons and Walras approach to value is two-sided and the other three sided? Or does Hülsmann make Austrian theory look better than perhaps waranted for (that is in this specific context).