Re: More money or better distribution?

["John B. O'Donnell" <jackodonnell@xxxxxxxx>]

Chas Anderson wrote:
>
> John, you need to get beyond dQ/dM and explain where dM is coming from.

No, I don't. The reasons I continue to raise the issue are:
(1) No satisfactory response has been put forward; and,
(2) because if it does not hold that dQ/dM=0 then much of my argument
falls.

If case (2) then I'd prefer to make any needed adjustments to my
arguments than to keep spouting fallacies.

> You're begging the "needs of trade" argument from a group that is steep in
> real bills theory.

Your making an assumption that all is known and whatever you associate
with "needs of trade" is a part of my arguments and that the "real bills
theory" is so certain of correctness that no modification is needed. I'm
so happy you have solved all the economic problems of the world.

> What you really need is a model.

Try the "Widgets in S-Basic" model for a start. It is simple but it does
demonstrate most of my claims. If you know of a way to model market
prices of corporations other than the method I have used [Proportional
to the production capacity.] I'd appreciate hearing it so I can remove
the complaint raised by Don Dale that I have now inserted in the
argument.

> I read a couple of
> pages from the "web" you are always recommending and I found it loaded with
> so many
> misrepresentations about economics and economists that it is no wonder
> you're frustrated with economist.

Please be specific. If I agree with your complaint I will gladly not
only make the changes, but also credit you for having found the
misrepresentations.

> I would be too if I didn't understand the
> methodology of economics. I suggest a place to begin on "real bills" is
> Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations."

I agree it's a good book and I probably should read it again, but right
now I'm re-reading Henry George's _Progress and Poverty_ while I wait
for library availability of Paul Krugman's _The Accidental Theorist_
that had been suggested by Alan Isaac. As to understanding the
methodology of economics, I'd rather pick those methods that make sense
and not bother with continuing study of those that are obviously in
error. While I conceded it is useful to examine the fallacies of others,
I have a great deal of difficulty holding onto too many errors while
trying to follow the sense of an argument based on those errors. This is
just another reason I am concerned with the foundations. [i.e. -- before
continuing with any arguments that depend on the possible outcomes of
dQ/dM, I'd prefer to be confident of the possible outcomes. If it is not
zero, then my arguments fall, if it is zero then printing money in
expectation of causing economic progress is false.]

<<SNIP>>

			-- jbod

		Tax Privilege, Not People
___________________________________________________
Come visit and see a new economic perspective --
       http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1067
           Comments/arguments welcome.
..