GM Ambrosi wrote:
> Dear James Ahiakpor and Mason Gaffney,
> good to have some agreement.
>
> As far as Keynes's accounting definitions are concerned, I think that
> he did not treat the alternative ones unfairly. As far as the
> practicality of accounting taxonomies is concerned, modern practice
> does side with Keynes (and precursors).
>
I agree that "modern practice does side with Keynes" regarding
"accounting taxonomies." But this is only because modern macroeconomics
has been dominated by Keynes's ideas, which are distortions of the
classical concepts of saving, capital, investment, and money, thanks
mainly to J.R. Hicks (1937).
But I don't know how Michael comes by the view that Keynes did not treat
the alternative accounting definitions "unfairly." The reviews of
Keynes's GT by Dennis Robertson (1936), Jacob Viner (1936), and Frank
Knight (1937) all point to Keynes's creation of new concepts in place of
the traditional ones -- "a new language," Viner (1936, 147) calls them.
Even John Hicks (1936) describes Keynes's definitions of saving and
investment as "new". Robertson (1937) subsequently calls Keynes's
definition of saving "paradoxical" and his definitions of "finance" and
"liquidity" "verbal monstrosities." I have collected these differences
in definition between Keynes and the "classicals" in chapter 2 of
/Keynes and the Classics Reconsidered/ (1998). My puzzle then is, what
does it take to get people to recognize Keynes's distortions of
classical concepts?
> As far as removing the time dimension from economics is concerned, at
> least after E=mc^2 we should all be aware that time is a dimension
> which our universe cannot do without since "c" must be measured in
> terms of distance per time unit. But it is indeed a lasting challenge
> in economics how to take account of time in an analytically fruitful way.
Mason Gaffney claimed incorrectly that Keynes put time back into
economics, and Michael agrees. In the first place, Keynes was not
addressing J.B. Clark and Frank Knight, who allegedly tried to take time
our of economic analysis. Rather, Keynes was addressing directly
followers of "Ricardian economics," including "J.S. Mill, Marshall,
Edgeworth and Prof. Pigou" (1936, 3n). Secondly, don't people avail
themselves of Marshall's /Principles/ (1920) and his treatment of the
problem of time (period) in economic analysis anymore? Even the
analysis of forced saving, a concept Keynes failed to grasp, involves
changes in interest rates, prices, wage rates, output and employment
overtime, following a change in the quantity of money (currency). I
also think Keynes would be embarrassed with the praise being heaped on
him for having, allegedly, introduced time into economic analysis.
After all, wasn't it Keynes who complained that economists set
themselves "too easy" a task of explaining what happens to the economy
in the long run, because "I/n the long run/ we are all dead" (1923, 88)?
How could the "classicals" get to the long run in their analysis without
traversing from the short run?
>
> Best wishes to all and thanks for the wealth of information coming
> forth in this group.
> Michael Ambrosi
>
Best wishes in return. I hope there will be more willingness to read
the classical definitions in their original (in the new year; I'm not
holding my breath, though) so more people get to see their way out of
the Keynesian fog.
James Ahiakpor
> 2015-12-30 0:50 GMT+01:00 Mason Gaffney <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>
> Dear GM Ambrosi,
>
> Thanks for clarifying your view. I would not put it the way you do
> – this “at least conceptually the static moment of pause” is too
> forced for my taste - but you are driving at something with
> substance, and do not give the impression of musty antiquarianism
> that provoked my complaint.
>
> We may be talking past each other, but in my view J.B. Clark and
> Frank Knight and their allies sought to remove any time dimension
> from economics. To a great extent they succeeded, leaving much of
> the profession disarmed from facing or analyzing the reality of
> the great crash. This left a vacuum into which Keynes rushed. I
> join others in hailing him for that. In his rush he and his
> followers lost a lot, too, so our task is not finished.
>
> Mason Gaffney
>
> *From:*Societies for the History of Economics
> [mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *GM
> Ambrosi
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 29, 2015 8:44 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: [SHOE] Keynes quotatation
>
> @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.
>
> 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)
>
> 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
>
>
> --
> 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)
|
