Re: James A. Baker III

["Gunnar Tomasson" <tomasson@xxxxxxxx>]

John:

Schumpeter wrote:

"I have not been able to convince myself, for example, that such questions
as THE SOURCE OF INTEREST are either unimportant or uninteresting.  They
could be made so, at all events, only by the fault of the author."

What do you make of Schumpeter's question?

IF you regard it as "either unimportant or uninteresting", THEN, for what it
is worth, Schumpeter would place the "fault" with you.

More generally, Schumpeter's view that the question was an important one
reflects the classical view that, as Keynes put it, "The theory of economics
is an apparatus of the mind, a technique of thinking".

The fact that this view of "the theory of economics" is Greek to most modern
economists is evidence (a) that Keynes and Schumpeter were deficient in
their mental apparatus and technique of thinking, or (b) that their modern
successors have gone off the track.

Gunnar


----- Original Message -----
From: "John O'Donnell" <jackodonnell@xxxxxxxx>
To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: James A. Baker III


> Gunnar Tomasson wrote:
>
> <<SNIP>>
>
> > Comment:
> >
> > Given
> >
> > (a) outstanding credit (money supply) of 100, and
> >
> > (b) loan interest rate of 10% per loan period, then
> >
> > (c) end-period repayment of principal and interest will total 100 + 10 =
> > 110.
> >
> > Absent NEW credit to the original debtor(s) in the amount of 10, accrued
> > interest CANNOT be paid.
>
> So many intelligent posts and then this!
>
> Gunnar, debt is eliminated by repayment; the money, even
> when it is only central bank credits, used for repayment
> just keeps rollin' along.
>
> <<SNIP>>
> --
> -- jbod
>
> Tax Privilege, Not People
> ___________________________________________________
> Come visit and see a new economic perspective --
>        http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1067
>            Comments/arguments welcome.
> .
>
>