Is Keynes really that clear? His descriptions of the monetary side seem pretty vague to me. How else were the US Keynesians able to say that his policy was just government spending?
Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901 michaelperelman.wordpress.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Devine Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 11:07 AM To: Progressive Economics Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Re: Reality catches up with catastrophists Michael Perelman wrote: > Jim is exactly correct, as John Law's experiment in France proved, but > this kind of growth is difficult to sustain relative to a more balanced > form of growth based on normal incomes. Of course, under capitalism > stability is only relative. we should be careful here. Pre-Keynesian business cycle theory (cf. Haberler's book) said that raising money supply (or M*V) growth would lead only to temporary and unstable booms, because imbalances would be result that needed to be purged by recession. Some Marxists agree. On the other hand, one of Keynes' contributions is to point out that under certain circumstances, such as the aftermath of a severe recession or during a depression, M*V growth can actually lead to persistent prosperity. -- Jim Devine / "Nobody told me there'd be days like these / Strange days indeed -- most peculiar, mama." -- JL. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
