Personally I have no objection to auditing the kind of discussion that Ken Gordon refers to -- quite the contrary.

In particular the recent exchanges have given me low-cost access to traditions with which I am relatively unfamiliar (for example, Georgism and Austrianism) and moreover provided insight into the differences of interpretation that may exist within these schools of thought.

Best wishes,

Julian Wells

 
Dr Julian Wells
Acting Director of Studies
School of Economics

staff web-page: http://fass.kingston.ac.uk/staff/cv.php?staffnum=287
personal web-site: http://staffnet.kingston.ac.uk/~ku32530

Senior lecturer in economics
School of Economics
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
Kingston University
Penrhyn Road
Kingston-upon-Thames
KT1 2EE
United Kingdom

+44 (0)20 8417 2285
________________________________________
From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken Gordon [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 19 April 2010 01:54
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: SHOE: DISC -- Gunning -- Bubbles, Booms, and the Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle

I agree with Weintraub on this. Much of what appears on this list these days are back-and-forth discussions between two members of the list. To the observers, each often seems to be talking past, not to, the other. In gentler times, those discussions would have taken place privately by letter, with the result, if any, bringing forth a paper or a book by one or both of the correspondents. Couldn't, for example, Robin and Pat take their discussion to private e-mail exchanges, then when they reach a conclusion tell the rest of us about it? And if they don't reach a conclusion, that'll tell them something about the value of the exchange. This is a classic externality: the marginal cost of one more bit traversing the Internet is vanishingly small; the cost to me of scanning and deleting is more than I want to spend.

Ken Gordon
On 2010-04-17, at 7:46 PM, E. Roy Weintraub wrote:

Colleagues: Although I may be the only one interested in this posting, I still would like to let folks know that I have asked the list manager to remove me from this SHOE List. Once upon a time, this list served to bring together announcements, information, and indeed community to the far-flung and isolated members of the HE community. It now no longer appears to do so, as a number of individuals have informed me, off list, that they have no interest in the limited range of subjects that appear, like Gresham's Law, to have driven out all other subjects. I hope that, if others feel the same way, the list owners at HES and ESHET will find a way to address the issue of reduced subscriptions. If others do not feel the same way, the list will go on as it has been doing. In any event, in the future please feel free to email me privately at [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>. ERW

On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Pat Gunning <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Robin, I must admit that I cannot follow your reasoning. Perhaps you could clarify. Here is what you say about the causes of an increase in productivity:

"When prices rise because demand has risen, it is reasonable for agents to respond by producing more, thereby increasing the productivity of the system. Further, it is reasonable for individuals to hasten their purchases in anticipation of further price increases. This, too, increases the productivity of the system."

I take it that you are proposing two causes of increases in the productivity of the system: (1) an increase in demand for consumer goods and (2) the expectation that the prices at which they buy capital goods (including consumer durables and land) will rise.

Neither of these is sufficiently specified for me to evaluate your claim. Let me start with the first: the idea that a demand increase could cause economic growth. Are you writing about aggregate demand? You cannot mean the demand for a specific consumer good. This cannot occur without an offsetting decrease in demand for another product, an increase in resource supply, a technological advance, or a reduction in demand for a capital good (a decrease in saving). To support your claim, you would have to specify much more than you do. Or if you are writing about aggregate demand, what else are you assuming? Again, you would have to specify much more before one could evaluate your claim.

The second cause is the expectation of a higher price which presumably would occur if one buys a durable consumer good or a durable capital good, including land. But why would someone expect the price of such a good to rise without an offsetting expectation that the price of some other good to fall? Again there must be other changes that are occurring that you have not specified.

It is difficult for me to make sense of your distinction between bubbles and increases in productivity if you do  not specify more fully.

--
Pat Gunning
Independent economist
Groton, Connecticut
http://www.nomadpress.com/gunning/welcome.htm



--
E. Roy Weintraub
Professor of Economics
Duke University
www.econ.duke.edu/~erw/erw.homepage.html<http://www.econ.duke.edu/~erw/erw.homepage.html>


This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.