SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
John Médaille <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:26:32 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (23 lines)
I am enjoying this discussion, but a 
clarification, please. James is arguing in favor 
of the FRS, and Pat against it. I had assumed 
that Pat was for a gold system, but he says that 
while he would like that, he is not actually 
proposing it. In which case, what are you proposing?

Also, I do not understand the distinction in this 
sentence: "Let's keep in mind that the function 
of financial intermediation is not to get money 
from savers to investors, like a Keynesian might 
argue, but to enable the purchasing power of 
savers to be employed in the directions that most 
satisfy consumer wants both in the near and more 
distant future, as a good Austrian would argue." 
Isn't that part of what investors do? Of course, 
investors also speculate with the money, as we 
have seen, an "investment" which adds nothing, 
since in speculation, one man's gains are 
measured by another man's loses; there is no net gain.

John C. Médaille

ATOM RSS1 RSS2