Re: WWW -- Harrod home-page (fwd)

["schulte-baeuminghaus" <cresscourt@xxxxxxxxx>]

Daniele,

Yes. You're quite right, so far as I'm aware.
I don't think Giblin himself or, for example, Peter Karmel in writing
about him, ever claimed that he ever made any very sophisticated
development of his concept.
He was a rather rough-hewn man and he got his rough-hewn concept
right.
That's about it.
Much the more important point is that Giblin's concept of the
multiplier was in the minds of Australian policymakers, especially
Treasurer, later Prime Minister Chifley, and the generality of
economic-policy officials and academics, including Australian
students, in those crucial years when postwar economic policy was
being formulated and implemented between 1941 and 1949.
No one who affected to hold significant economic-policy qualifications
in those years would dare to confess that he did not know of
"Australia 1930" and Giblin's concept of the multiplier.


James Cumes
The Bookshelf of James Cumes
http://members.chello.at/schulte-baeuminghaus

----------
>From: Daniele Besomi <dbesomi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: "schulte-baeuminghaus" <cresscourt@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: WWW -- Harrod home-page (fwd)
>Date: Fri, May 25, 2001, 8:18 am
>

> Thank you for your note. Giblin's piece is now well recognised in the
> literature on the origins of the multiplier (although he can't claim
> priority), so there is no problem with that. However, someone in the PKT
> list claimed that he was an early stater of a multiplier-accelerator trade
> cycle model, and I saw no hint of that in Giblin's piece.
>
> Daniele
>
>
> _____________________________
> Daniele Besomi
>  c.p. 7
> 6950 Gola di Lago
> Switzerland
>
> Phone and fax: + 41 91 9433635
>
>