PEN-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
RE: pop quiz time
- To: <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: pop quiz time
- From: "Forstater, Mathew" <ForstaterM@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 17:44:16 -0500
- Thread-index: AcH4ZVytm7VrKaIIRMWsmtEaHSXUmwAD0Jjg
- Thread-topic: [PEN-L:25863] pop quiz time
Hicks?
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Murray [mailto:seamus2001@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 4:00 PM
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [PEN-L:25863] pop quiz time
[who said it?]
"...confusion forces practical economists to explain the determination
of
interest by opportunity cost reasoning - a particular rate of interest
being set by the 'pure' rate yielded by the riskless government bonds,
with inflation, risk, and administrative cost premia added. But there is
no watertight justification for the perpetual existence of this 'pure'
rate. Interest exists because it is there; it is still held up by its
own
theoretical bootstraps. The failure of mainstream economics to explain
adequately the existence of interest betrays the fact that it is merely
a
theoretical concept with no true basis in reality. It is a figment of
our
collective imaginations."
- Thread context:
- Re: pop quiz time, (continued)
- Re: pop quiz time,
Gil Skillman Fri 10 May 2002, 21:23 GMT
- Re: pop quiz time,
Eugene Coyle Fri 10 May 2002, 21:26 GMT
- RE: pop quiz time,
Max Sawicky Fri 10 May 2002, 22:10 GMT
- Message not available
- P.S.,
Gil Skillman Fri 10 May 2002, 22:11 GMT
- RE: pop quiz time,
Forstater, Mathew Fri 10 May 2002, 22:47 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]