Re: [Fwd: Two zone acceleration effect]

["Jack O'Donnell" <jackodonnell@xxxxxxxx>]

Greg Nowell wrote:
>
> O'donnell's comments were wholly off-base, not to
> mention condescencing, on my query on this point
> insofar as they engage the whole of terminology
> employed by economics, including Keynesians. It's not
> my fight. His answer also does not address my
> question.  I'm also not interested in always engaging
> someone who has a total system to defend and who views
> everything within the larger context of trying to
> defend his total system.

Like it or not, the simple yes, yes/no, yes, yes answers are inherent in
the model and not the result of rational analysis. I'm sorry if you find
my remarks off-base but that's the reality of attempting to find answers
from definitions disguised as analytical tools.

> So I'm putting O'donnell on
> my personal system's filters and hope he does the same
> to me.  We can mutually cease to exist for one another.

Such is life; but I see no reason to ignore your commentaries /
questions as they are often insightful.

> Following is the response of Keynesian economist
> colleague and collaborator  in Paris.  The French
> doesn't need translation as the answers on the
> point-by-point are in English.   I'm surprised this
> topic does not arouse more interest among the
> economists on the list.
>
> --
> Gregory P. Nowell
> Associate Professor
> Department of Political Science, Milne 100
> State University of New York
> 135 Western Ave.
> Albany, New York 12222
>
> Fax 518-442-5298
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Two zone acceleration effect
> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 14:14:40 +0200
> From: ventelou <bruno.ventelou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Greg Nowell <GN842@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> La consommation interne est très inerte, aisément prévisible, etc.. Plus un
> pays fait reposer sa croissance sur des éléments comme l'investissement, ou
> les exportations, plus il sera sensible aux chocs conjoncturels.
>
> On peut dire ça indépendamment même de la théorie macro (keynésienne ou non
> keynésienne).
>
> So :
> 1 Yes
> 2 Yes if there is a shock, a perturbation (but "No", if we consider a
> stationary economy)
> 3 Yes
> 4 Yes, a big one.
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Greg Nowell <GN842@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> À : pkt <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; bruno ventelou
> <bruno.ventelou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date : jeudi 3 juin 1999 00:53
> Objet : Two zone acceleration effect
>
> >Consider investment as a component of aggregate
> >income.  Assuming some arbitrary measure of GDP,  the
> >situation in case no. 1 might be
> >
> >Y = I + C or, in geographic zone #1,
> >100= 20 + 80.
> >
> >No consider zone #2
> >Y=I +C
> >or 100=50+50.
> >
> >Zone #2 exports heavily to zone #1.  Zone #1's growth
> >is steady but does not provide enough growth in
> >consumption to outpace Zone #2's acceleration effect.
> >
> >1.  Would it not be the case that zone #2 would be more
> >prone to imbalances attributable to the "acceleration
> >effect" than zone #1, lacking as it were, its own
> >component of "stabilizing demand"?
> >
> >2.  Would it imply geographic disparities in employment
> >based on the distribution of consumption?
> >
> >3.  Would it imply that the value of assets (and by
> >implication the liquidity of the banking system) be
> >more volatile in the zone with the higher dependency on
> >investment as a component of Y?
> >
> >4.  Is it a possible explanation for an Asian
> >super-boom which lasts about 15 years and then goes
> >superbust?  A small part of explanation or a big one?
> >
> >--
> >Gregory P. Nowell
> >Associate Professor
> >Department of Political Science, Milne 100
> >State University of New York
> >135 Western Ave.
> >Albany, New York 12222
> >
> >Fax 518-442-5298
> >
> >

--
			-- jbod

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