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:
Reply To:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 3 Feb 2014 05:15:09 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (52 lines)
Dear Nikos

Let me make another effort at clarifying my objection to the examination of
economic thought just in the short run  (= look at the modern only)

John Barkley Rosser appears to stand with both Ricardo and Say who:

>  admitted at least that (hoarding) could amount to something in the short
run, although they tended to deny it for the long run.

On the other hand, the archaeologist Bradley seems to be making legitimate
points about two or three thousand years of human economic activity when he
makes ritual hoarding (of badges of status, gold and silver rings etc) vital
to the prevention of what he calls status inflation (although I would prefer
to call it the maintenance of status deflation)

And the (total?) abolition of seigniorage in Islam around 825 apparently led
to a period of  bullion hoarding and cash shortage that lasted until 1200,
just shy of 400 years  (Lieber)

And the so called European 15th century bullion famine is arguably  best
understood as a period of metal/specie hoarding that lasted a century (Sussman)

In 1735 Berkeley asked 

179. Qu. Whether business at fairs and markets is not often at a stand and
often hindered, even though the seller hath his commodities at hand and the
purchaser his gold, yet for want of change?

In the year he wrote this the English situation was:

1,174 troy oz of silver to the mint, 36,856 troy oz to plate (hoarded for
display)

Mayhew tracks these figures down to 1772:  by that date, the situation was
even worse: 

Zero to the mint, 93,360 troy oz to plate

Surely “markets at a stand” must have  hit  GDP?  Surely 37 years is a long
run in any individuals life? (and the problem in reality ran from 1666 to 1816)

I make these points not in any way as an opponent of market economies. 
Really, it is the reverse, I fear the neglect of most of history by modern
theoreticians (perhaps Kates, Rosser, Ricardo and Say), along with the
distortion – reverse engineering - of history by others, is hiding the true
“enemies of open societies”, and the open markets that open societies require.

Rob Tye, York UK

https://www.academia.edu/3556314

ATOM RSS1 RSS2