GM Ambrosi wrote:
> @Mason Gaffney wondering about the "concern over who said it first".
> I think it is important to establish that there is no quote from
> Keynes stating that he interpreted the GT "as a dynamic theory of
> unemployment." Discussing this is not a question of "copyright" but
> one of analysis.
>
I agree with Michael Ambrosi's first comment. Knowing what Keynes said
and what someone else is interpreting him to have said is important. I
just wish Ambrosi would apply the same treatment to Keynes's claim (GT,
p. 63) to have been interpreting correctly what "the traditional usage
of the great majority of economists" meant by "saving" and "investment,"
and which led to his [Keynes's] insistence that saving and investment
are "necessarily equal." Michael says:
> Briefly elaborating my view of the matter, I maintain that the crucial
> point of Keynes's analysis is his claim that investment is
> "necessarily" equal to savings (GT, p. xxxii, p. 63 and passim). As
> a theory of macroeconomic (un)employment this implies a
> comparative-static "anticipated ex-post analysis" (Ambrosi, 2003, ch.
> 26.2, pp. 397-403). The static aspect comes from the fact that there
> must be at least conceptually the static moment of pause in which the
> income expenditure accounts for a given period of income generation
> are matched with the income production accounts as described on p.63 GT.
> Michael Ambrosi
> (Ambrosi, G.M. 2003, Keynes, Pigou and Cambridge Keynesians, palgrave
> macmillan)
>
>
Now, from Adam Smith through to Alfred Marshall, Pigou, and Robertson,
saving was defined as the purchase of financial assets or the supply of
loanable funds that earns interest or dividends, not cash hoarding.
That is why saving is the same thing as "investment" in financial
assets. On the other hand, "investment" by the same authors also meant
employment of the loanable funds in the sphere of production. Thus,
"investment" includes the purchase of producer's goods -- fixed and
circulating capital -- the wages funds, and cash-on-hand to facilitate
production. Understood that way, "investment" can exceed savings by
households when a central bank increases its supply of money, swelling
up the volume of credit and depressing interest rates. This is what
starts the process called "forced saving."
Clearly, Keynes misunderstood what "the great majority of economists"
before him and his distinguished colleagues, including Pigou and
Robertson, meant by saving and investment. That is why he came to the
conclusion he did. Keynes also dismissed the concept of "forced saving"
as being meaningless, because no one can be forced to save -- meaning
hoarding cash! Turning Keynes's confusion into an "anticipated ex-post
analysis" just blurs recognition of what was the matter with him. Can
we read Keynes from a clear understanding of what the classics meant by
their key concepts of saving, investment, capital, and money, I keep
pleading?
James Ahiakpor
>
> 2015-12-29 1:57 GMT+01:00 Mason Gaffney <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>
> If we were judges in a high-stakes copyright case I could
> understand this deep concern over who said it first.However, since
> we aren’t, I wonder if the time and talent of the many learned and
> distinguished participants are being put to their highest and best
> uses?
>
> For example, it would really be useful to trace the history of
> copyright laws, and the positions of those who favored and opposed
> them.Mill allowed a cheap “worker’s edition” of his Principles
> (which I have used for years).Henry George refused to copyright
> Progress and Poverty, saying he wanted to maximize distribution.
> (Ironically, one of his contemporary critics attacked him for
> plagiarizing Mill and Ricardo.)Upton Sinclair shrugged off
> plagiarists of his own books by quipping that the purpose of
> publishing is to have one’s ideas stolen.Does Dickens’ estate
> charge royalties for every production of “A Christmas Carol”?
>
> I wonder if we are not unconsciously absorbing the values of
> monopolists and rent-seekers to encourage writing for
> money?Exploring THAT would be worth our time and talent.
>
> Mason Gaffney
>
> *From:*Societies for the History of Economics
> [mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *
> Mauro Boianovsky
> *Sent:* Monday, December 28, 2015 1:39 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: [SHOE] Keynes quotatation
>
> This is probably taken from Don Patinkin's 1976 book "Keynes's
> monetary thought: a study of its development". He interpreted
> Keynes's GT "not as a static theory of unemployment equilibrium,
> but as a dynamic theory of unemployment disequilibrium". Similar
> quotes may be found in other statements by Patinkin of his
> disequilibrium interpretation of Keynesian unemployment.
>
> Mauro Boianovsky
>
> Citando "Colander, David C."
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>
> Martin Shubik asked me whether I knew where this quote from
> Keynes came from. I don't. Can anyone help me?
>
> "I have interpreted the General Theory not as a static theory
> of unemployment, but as a dynamic theory of unemployment.
>
> Dave Colander
>
> ----------------
>
> Mauro Boianovsky
> Department of Economics
> Universidade de Brasilia CP 4302
> Brasilia DF 70910-900
> Brazil
> Fax: 55 61 33402311
> Phone: 55 61 31076583
>
>
>
>
> --
> Prof. em. Dr. Dr.h.c. G.M. Ambrosi
> Jean Monnet Professor "ad personam"
> University of Trier, FB IV VWL
> D-54286 Trier
> mobil: 0049-178-286 2703
--
James C.W. Ahiakpor, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Economics
California State University, East Bay
Hayward, CA 94542
510-885-3137
510-885-7175 (Fax; Not Private)
|
