tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post4136284252257971365..comments2024-03-28T17:08:15.784-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Catalán on the Wicksellian Natural Rate of InterestLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-86665627094388400162014-07-25T23:09:16.780-07:002014-07-25T23:09:16.780-07:00LK, by the way did you know that Keynes and Wickse...LK, by the way did you know that Keynes and Wicksell actually meet once? Torsten Gårdlund writes: Knut Wicksell had in 1916 received 1000 crowns of the central bank in middle of the war to travel to England to study its economic policy ... home to his wife Wicksell tells in a letter that he had the opportunity to eat lunch with Keynes, then an official of the British Treasury. Wicksell says: "However, it is a sharp head and, as I said, I acquired a good deal of the conversation;I would only wish it had lasted longer, now he must go as soon as the lunch with coffee was over - I still followed him on foot to his barbershop" -Gårdlund, Torsten, 1990, Knut Wicksell, SNS <br />Publishers, Stockholm, p 326.<br /> Janhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13321416654318469280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-38076524390689443812012-05-22T08:01:04.650-07:002012-05-22T08:01:04.650-07:00He's wrong:
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury...He's wrong:<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2012/05/robert-p-murphy-gets-it-wrong-on.htmlLord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-43824648105479646802012-05-22T07:48:10.193-07:002012-05-22T07:48:10.193-07:00Jan said: I notice that "Austrian schoolar´s&...Jan said: I notice that "Austrian schoolar´s" of differnt variations don´t fully understand and diminish Knut Wicksell´s work.He worked on many fields of economy in a period of Goldstandard and other limitations,at the time when marginal-utiliy theory was just delivered.He lived from 1851–1926.He unlike Austrian schoolars was in constant change,curios,inventive and a progressive economist.His Natural-Rate concept,was merely fictive and he even in some of his writings condemn in it.There is two way to use Wicksell´s work.As Austrian schoolar´s to focus on some concept of Wicksell (Natural-Rate) and slavish use this as dogma.The other way is like J.M Keynes,Gunnar Myrdal,Joseph Schumpeter and many other build further on some of the observations of Wicksell,like his cumulative process ideas of growth and recession and disequilibrium,and his early theory of endogenous money,etc.It was so his own followers and students in his own country Sweden dealed with him.It made them able at early years in a unortodox way meet the 1930ts depression with a progressive kit-bag of tools to intervene and use a Keynsian-like economic policy to end the depression.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-76363876618660436602012-05-22T02:23:07.538-07:002012-05-22T02:23:07.538-07:00Glad to see you get owned by Bob Murphy here:
htt...Glad to see you get owned by Bob Murphy here:<br /><br />http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2012/05/lord-keynes-beautifully-illustrates-why-we-get-nowhere-in-the-stimulus-debate.htmlRobert Dineronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-57506818499215061212012-05-20T14:16:58.682-07:002012-05-20T14:16:58.682-07:00Austrians are way more interesting, though. Plus,...Austrians are way more interesting, though. Plus, market monetarists don't seem to understand the mechanics of banking well enough to have a policy prescription worth debating. They're just another trope on the typical mainstream, exogenous money approach, long since falsified.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-36312805686953055582012-05-20T09:23:10.390-07:002012-05-20T09:23:10.390-07:00No, you're wrong.
I never said that modern Au...No, you're wrong.<br /><br />I never said that modern Austrian economics doesn't utilize a "natural rate of interest", what I keep saying, over and over again whenever this supposed "critique" occurs, is that it is conducted in terms of money, because we are analyzing the the economics of the catallaxy. Since money can be aggregated and different rates of return arbitraged, in the ERE there can exist one rate of interest. And while this rate may never appear in the real economy, arbirage forces always exist trying to fruitlessly propel it towards. No modern austrian economist conducts his constructs with the belief that they are analyzing a barter economy. <br /><br />While the Mises in TMC might have made such an error, the older Mises evolved his ideas and emphasized interest in the economy is conducted in terms of money.<br /><br />As Salerno writes (with a quote from Mises)<br /><br />"Not only does Mises conceive the interest rate as a potential cost<br />of holding money, he also recognizes that it is a monetary phenomenon<br />in a real and important sense. That is, in a barter economy, where<br />monetary calculation does not exist, it would be impossible to even<br />conceive the difference in value between present and future goods as<br />a unitary rate. The reason, as Mises points out, is that “Only within a<br />money economy can this value difference be comprehended in the<br />abstract and separated from changes in the valuation of individual<br />concrete economic goods. In a barter economy, the phenomenon of<br />interest could never be isolated from the evaluation of future price<br />movements of individual goods.”"Patchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-9418899335784023452012-05-20T07:51:18.350-07:002012-05-20T07:51:18.350-07:00You're wrong.
Garrison expounds a Haykeian ve...You're wrong.<br /><br />Garrison expounds a Haykeian version of the ABCT - with the Wicksellian natural rate.<br /><br />Therefore Sraffa's critique is still relevant.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-27473099444010610102012-05-19T16:41:52.454-07:002012-05-19T16:41:52.454-07:00Lord Keynes,
You've attacked Austrians for a...Lord Keynes,<br /><br />You've attacked Austrians for a while now to some degree, which is somewhat easy, as the Rothbardian cult is something of a low hanging fruit. WHat about neo-Friedmanites and market monetarists? might I suggest the money illusion by scott sumner, and macro market musings by David Becker. It would by interesting hearing you on their blogs, in critique or in agreementJohnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-73700871863833266192012-05-19T08:07:01.202-07:002012-05-19T08:07:01.202-07:00Isn't this the umpteenth time that we have bee...Isn't this the umpteenth time that we have been through this, Lord keynes? That the natural rate of interest is conducted in terms of money and that the later Mises and Rothbard understood this. Yes, Hayek did not, and since he was fundamentallly Walrasian in some respects he had to concede to Sraffa this that other Austrians wouldn't. Hayek made important contributions to capital theory, but that does not mean everything he wrote was right. Criticizing austrians on this point is like quoting william stanely jevons as proof modern neoclassicals use cardinal utility when constructing demand curves.Patchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-12726941777598905452012-05-19T02:50:34.295-07:002012-05-19T02:50:34.295-07:00(1) "That the emphasis is on fiduciary expans...(1) <i>"That the emphasis is on fiduciary expansion doesn't mean that any amount of fiduciary expansion is distortionary."</i><br /><br />Here, then, you are admitting that an economy might be able to deal with increased demand for capital goods without an ABC, when money supply rises. <br /><br />If that is true, then why can't money expansion of an endogenous money system with a central bank work in the same way? (cause development without ABCs)<br /><br />(2) <i>"And that Garrison uses the idea of a natural rate of interest doesn't mean that it's necessary for austrian business cycle theory."</i><br /><br />Well, I am glad you appear to admit Garrison's exposition is flawed by his use of the Wicksellian natural rate.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-86002574343139136472012-05-19T02:46:32.139-07:002012-05-19T02:46:32.139-07:00"Does this not contradict Catalán’s earlier p..."Does this not contradict Catalán’s <b>earlier</b> post?"<br /><br />If you can't see the connection, then you're wasting your time here.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-2957900888714319312012-05-18T20:06:03.778-07:002012-05-18T20:06:03.778-07:00I don't see the logic in what you say. How h...I don't see the logic in what you say. How has the alleged failure of free banking in Australia got anything to do with Catalán's post?<br /><br />I think it would be more useful if you used your obvious talents in economic theory to search for truth rather than twisting others arguments for self-serving ends.robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04682517711551179057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-37063794997829162512012-05-18T15:21:44.684-07:002012-05-18T15:21:44.684-07:00You really need to fill in the blanks. That the e...You really need to fill in the blanks. That the emphasis is on fiduciary expansion doesn't mean that any amount of fiduciary expansion is distortionary. And that Garrison uses the idea of a natural rate of interest doesn't mean that it's necessary for austrian business cycle theory. I'll also add that Hayek's <i>Profits, Interest, and Investment</i> assumes several of the qualities that you have argued Austrian theory assumes away (i.e. idle resources, etc). Idle resources doesn't equate to suberabundance and it doesn't mean that resources don't need to be economized.Jonathan Finegold Catalánhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16710256011291680376noreply@blogger.com