| Abstract: | It is argued that the corn–guano model proposed by Bidard and Erreygers is too simple as a representation of Hotelling's theory because it does not reflect the distinction between the resource in situ and the extracted resource. The claim to have transposed the representation of Hotelling's theory from the neoclassical to a classical context is not warranted because normal prices are not used. The model is elegant in its simiplicity but it does not face the relevant problems of exhaustible resources posed by the real world. |
