Re: General Theory Seminar--Moore (reply to Mosler)

[Basil Moore <bmoore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John
Economists frequently refer to an interest rate as a "price". For credit
this is not sloppy, at least in my sloppy mind. As a lending rate the rate
is the price of transferring credit or funds.

Surely one can say that "rent" is the price for having the right of
possession of an object for some stipulated time period?  i..e. a temporary
transfer of ownership?

But I agree that we tend to use words too loosely. Thank you for playing
watchdog.

Basil Moore


At 01:41 PM 3/2/00 -0800, you wrote:
>Basil Moore wrote:
>>
>> John
>> In this context the "price" of money that the Fed sets is the interest
>> rate. This is the price of credit, which the CB is supplying.
>> Basil Moore
>
>The context doesn't change the reality that a rent/interest rate
>is just that. It is not a price. Price applies to a transfer of
>ownership; rent and interest rates do not. Language
>transgressions such as this are among the reasons economists
>have such a hard time communicating even within there own
>arguments.
>
>However, even if your definition were true, it is also true that
>one can specifically assert a particular denotation for an
>argument on the condition that the denotation is used
>consistently within the argument. I specifically stated the
>definition I was using because economists tend to ignore the
>reality of meanings.
>
>> At 10:18 AM 3/1/00 -0800, you wrote:
><<SNIP>>
>
>> >It may only be a matter of email semantics, but the above leaves
>> >an erroneous impression. The supplier of goods or services can
>> >not concurrently set both the price and quantity. In the case of
>> >money "price" is the quantity of goods and services money buys.
>> >It is not the rental rate or interest charged for temporary use.
>
><<SNIP>>
>--
>			-- jbod
>
>		Tax Privilege, Not People
>___________________________________________________
>Come visit and see a new economic perspective --
>       http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1067
>           Comments/arguments welcome.
>.
>