Re: Surplus Wealth; Geopoltical Expansion; the New Frontier (fwd)

[Charles Anderson <chasna@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Harry Veeder wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Oct 1997, Charles Anderson wrote:
>
> > TPMacD@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > >
> > > Capital is formed when individuals within an economic system find themselves
> > > in possession of purchasing power in excess of what they require to satisfy
> > > their own, personal wants and desires.
> >
> > Why does voluntary saving in the form of an asset require a reward?
>
> I replied:
>
>  "Voluntary" saving by definition doesn't require a reward or an incentive
>   because it is *voluntary* by nature. It is "involuntary" saving which
>   drives the production of capital. An "involuntary" saver is a person
>   motivated to save by the prospect of the future consumption of new goods.
>
> Before people blast me, I'll admit that I used the words "voluntary" and
> "involuntary" very poorly, but that does not invalidate my point.
> Both forms of saving are voluntary when done *non coercively*. The
> "Voluntary" saver that Charles Anderson mentions is motivated by percieved
> intrinsic rewards. An example of intrinsic motivation: I will do a good
> job because a job well done is its own reward. In the case of saving money,
> the intrinsic reward comes from the satisfaction of the hording urge or
> instinct.
>
> The "involuntary" saver I mention is a person who is motivated to save by
> perceived extrinsic rewards. An example of extrinsic motivation: I will
> do a good job if I get an ice cream cone. In the case of saving money,
> the extrinsic reward comes from the satisfaction of getting "newer and
> better" goods and services.
>
> Harry Veeder

Chas to Harry:

Ex ante saving whether in the form of an income-earning asset or a non
income-earning asset (say, money) are voluntary and in both cases are
motivated by a type of return. The calculus involved in the saving
allocation process is a form of rational behavior adopted for the sake
of efficiency. All this implies a rational response to the fact of real
world constraints.

To say that potential output is unlimited is to ignore that production
can only take place with respect to time and is therefore limited by
definition.

Chas to All:

Also, I am wondering if any scholars of Keynes could give a citation
where He explicitly rejects UM theory?