Dear Penners,
Most of us are U.S. based and very much interested in hearing from progressive
economists based elsewhere. It is thus exciting that Pedro Paez has just joined
us. Pedro lives and works in Ecuador, is trained in Marxist theories of
economic development, and is particularly
Hi Michael,
I'm very interested!
Very Best Wishes,
Tom
Michael Perelman wrote:
A retiring colleague is willing to donate all the back issues of RRPE to a
deserving institution or person.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel.
Doug Henwood wrote:
It would, of course, be very clever of the Fed to announce their
commitment to transparency just as they were retreating from it. But
until they start acting that way, I'll take Ferguson at his word.
Doug
Ferguson also says that the primary task of central banks is to
The Fed didn't panic; it's trying to get out of the major "mistake" of
the Greenspan years--from the perspective of the history of the thinking
of central bankers--namely, a transparent monetary policy, and thus
accountability. By moving to inter-meeting moves they obtain the
ability to surprise
Dear Penners,
We have a one-year full-time position available for someone who is at
least ABD in economics. Since the job entails teaching 3 sections of
Micro Principles in fall 2001 and 3 sections of Macro Principles in
spring 2002, we are looking for someone with teaching experience. We
are
not
trust my memory 100%.
Edwin Dickens wrote:
Could you be more specific about what you mean by Keynes' later concern
with inflation? In particular, do you think Keynes abandoned his view of
monetary policy in the G.T. in order to assign it a role in fighting
inflation?
Could you be more specific about what you mean by Keynes' later concern
with inflation? In particular, do you think Keynes abandoned his view of
monetary policy in the G.T. in order to assign it a role in fighting
inflation?
Edwin (Tom) Dickens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This vision of the
Jim Devine wrote:
snip
The whole system also required institutions of wage- and
price-setting that allowed deflation, since the supply of gold seems to
steadily fall behind the demand for it as a capitalist economy grows.
Jim, If I'm not mistaken, Michael's argument is that technical
Jim Devine wrote:
I didn't know I was disagreeing with Michael. Reading the above tells me
that I wasn't. I was talking about something else, the need for a world
hegemon to allow fiat money to operate on a world scale and the way in
which the system of competing capitalist nation states
Ted,
You quote Marx's explanations of financial crises in terms of a flight from
financial assets, including fiat monies, to gold. What are the
implications of the fact that this did not occur for the relevance of Marx
to understanding recent financial crises?
Edwin (Tom) Dickens
Doug Henwood wrote:
I'm not Ted, but it tells me that Marx was wrong when he said that
crises cannot be resolved by "allowing one bank, e.g. the Bank of
England, to give all the swindlers the capital they lack in paper
money and to buy all the depreciated commodities at their old nominal
Hi Ellen,
It's me that's dense for not being clear that I'm not defending Operation
Twist. I'm just saying that it provides the best historical precedent for
current monetary policy.
That there is no market for loanable funds does not fly in the face of the
evidence, just in the face of the
Ellen Frank wrote:
snip
...aren't these
market connected via the responses of financial
players?
I should hope so. Isn't everything connected to everything else in an
advanced capitalist economy? But the point of theory is to abstract from
some connections in order to emphasize others as
Jim Devine wrote:
is this a lot or a little? Tom, I must admit I find your comments on this
issue to be a bit obscure.
Sorry. I prefer to think that it's the issues that are obscure, but maybe
it's just me. $220 billion is a lot. For example, as an alternative to
loanable funds theory or
Jim Devine wrote:
Paul A
Have a feeling the "limits of financial policy" issue is likely to be a key
policy debate in an upcoming crunch?
it's clear that monetary policy has its limits, since Greenspan has been
failing to slow the economy down for months now.
The problem is that the
Jim Devine wrote:
it's clear that monetary policy has its limits, since Greenspan has been failing to
slow the economy down for months now.
The major econometric models predict that a 25 basis point increase in the
Federal funds rate will decrease the rate of growth of GDP by one-tenth of
a
to justify
such a change, either strategy could be interpreted as a sign of panic--a
nice way to unhinge the dollar?
Edwin (Tom) Dickens
Doug Henwood wrote:
Edwin Dickens wrote:
Either a new
consensus forecast for interest rates will form or the Fed will begin to
lose its sacred &q
Jim Devine wrote:
didn't "Operation Twist" (the early 1960s effort to raise short rates while
lowering long ones) fail? or did it only fail after awhile, e.g., after the
election?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
I don't know Jim, what do you think? Was
Ellen Frank wrote:
I've never understood the reasoning behind operation twist.
Although a drop in long-rates would make it cheaper to
borrow and stimulate real spending, a rise in short rates,
it seems, would make lenders less willing lend long and finance
real investment. The reasoning
Michael Perelman wrote:
As I recall the explanation, long-term capital investment depends upon
long-term rates, while short-term consumption is affected by short-term
rates. In fact, of course, investment is pretty insensitive to interest
rates.
The argument has less to do with
Jim Devine wrote:
The Fed is driving up (and tomorrow probably will drive up) short rates
while the Treasury is driving down long rates. However, as Ellen notes,
there are real limits to this.
The Treasury probably has $220 billion to spend on long bonds between now
and November.
Michael Perelman wrote:
The magical yield curve supposedly indicates the type of pressures that are
building up in the economy. Operation Twist was supposed to manipulate the
environment.
Like fiscal surpluses to spend?
The Treasury has purchased $2 billion in long term government bonds in the
last month. It appears prepared to buy long bonds at an accelerating rate
through November. And the Fed seems prepared to go along by trying to
protect the dollar from the Treasury's purchases with a higher Federal
funds
Barnet Wagman wrote:
Operation Twist? What does that refer to?
During the Kennedy Administration, the Treasury and the Fed tried to
"twist" the yield curve, or "invert" it as we say today, by purchasing long
bonds and selling short ones. The idea was to stimulate domestic aggregate
demand
Yes: Could someone please explain why Doug and Lou are suddenly being
nice-nice?
Edwin (Tom) Dickens
Chris Burford wrote:
At 17:32 06/03/00 -0500, Doug wrote:
Louis Proyect wrote:
Actually, I can't think of a more lucid presentation of Keynsian and
post-Keynsian economics than in
How do we get copies?
"Max B. Sawicky" wrote:
So let's have this puppy!
mbs
I have recently finished a paper titled "Price Discrimination,
Electronic Redlining, and Price Fixing in de-regulated electric power."
. . .
Congratulations Max on a great piece. One thing though. Given your
insistence on politics as having to do with the possible, why do you think
Congress will go for greater spending on child care etc.? In other words,
why do you think the Democrats are wrong to think that, if they abandon the
Many thanks. This is great stuff.
Edwin (Tom) Dickens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Financial Markets Center web site has a Glass-Steagall Repeal page at
http://www.fmcenter.org/fmc_superpage.asp?ID=245
The page contains summaries (short and long) of major provisions in the
Max Sawicky wrote:
snip
I keep coming back to the fact that the
drive for debt repayment seems to indicate
something new in deep U.S. political economy.
I don't know exactly what.
snip
A labor movement on the defensive, perhaps? If the so-called Keynesian
Revolution in fiscal
All this talk of evil strikes me as belonging in a religious discourse
rather than in that of a social scientist, whatever the discipline.
Edwin (Tom) Dickens
Nathan Newman wrote:
Maybe it's because I am trained as a sociologist rather than an economist, I don't
reduce compensation to a
Dear Hinrich,
Most of the people who signed the letter would have written it differently,
but our comrades in Germany assured us that with these terms and this tone
our intervention would help the left challenge Schroder's shift to the
right. Were we misinformed?
Very Best Wishes,
Edwin (Tom)
I vote for calling Max "FLOP" from now on.
Edwin (Tom) Dickens
Max Sawicky wrote:
Finally, are other people besides the two Jims, Ricardo, and a few others
interested in this thread? Or should I demand in this cease once and for
all in 24 hours?
Michael Perelman
I don't know.
32 matches
Mail list logo
