PKT message, Re: two currencies and Korean war

"I have come to the conclusion that this forum is useless for anybody interested in a constructive dialogue, so have decided to sign off."

--------------------------

That would be a shame. I think you miss the real object of these discussions. They are a kind of Socratic dialog. It is true they are adversarial in the sense that discussants take up one point or another. The object is not so much for one discussant to persuade another of the correctness of his position--it will seldom happen; I'm not sure if it has ever happened--but for each of us to learn and sharpen his undestanding and have fun in the process. And there is the "silent majority" who would rather not make fools of themselves in public but read to their edification.

>From: "Per Gunnar Berglund"

>To: "PKT"

>Subject: Re: two currencies and Korean war

>Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 15:51:32 -0500

>In reply to Ted Winslow:

>Per had written before:

> > > Consumers'

> > > revenues from sales of services to producers amounts to the wage bill W.

> > > Therefore the balance between the two W - C will denote the net increase

>in

> > > producers' financial liabilities, the change by transaction in 'MC'.

>Ted wrote:

> > All of Y, i.e. profits, rent, interest and wages, is the income of

> > households, isn't it?

>Per says:

>Yes but all of 'income' does not consist of actual transactions between

>households and firms. There is an imputed part too. Perhaps you should read

>up a bit on national accounting?

>Ted wrote:

> >Their saving is Y - C.

>Per says:

>'Their' saving may not be household saving. 'Saving' in national accounting

>is a balancing item that has no immediate relation to actual transactions.

>Ted wrote:

> > This must be equal in a simple

> > system to I (investment by firms) all of which, on your assumptions, is

> > financed by a "net increase in producers' financial liabilities" to

> > households.

>Per says:

>It is true that investment = saving in ordinary national accounts. Neither

>has any basis in actual transactions between households and firms.

>The rest of your proposition is nonsense and misrepresents what I said.

>Ted wrote:

> > So Y - C equals this net increase. How could they be

> > different unless Y wasn't equal to C + I? If the net increase is only W -

> > what happens to Y - W i.e. non-wage household income?

>Per says:

>You keep going on in your own little world here, rather than relating to

>what I said. I have better things to do than to try pricking your bubble.

>I have come to the conclusion that this forum is useless for anybody

>interested in a constructive dialogue, so have decided to sign off.

>Ciao,

>Per

>_____________________________________________

>Per Gunnar Berglund

>CEPA 80 Fifth Avenue, 5th floor New York, NY 10011

>Tel: (212)229-5901, ext.327 Fax: (212)229-5903