|
Bill:
Re. the following:
Actually, it's a variation of the
old "ten can't repay eleven" fallacy that is the perennial argument of monetary
cranks
Here is what Schumpeter - a monetary crank by your
lights? - had to say on the subject matter:
"I have not been able to convince
myself, for example, that such questions as the source of interest [on
entrepreneurial credit and/or profit - insert GT] are either unimportant or
uninteresting. They could be made so, at all events, only by the fault of
the author." (The Theory of Economic Development, Preface to the
English Edition, Oxford University Press, 1961, p. x)
Apparently, Major Douglas was one
such author.
Gunnar
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:31
PM
Subject: Re: Keynes Stood On His Head?
The "point of
issue" about Keynes is predicated on your "final demand inflation" concept
that you "formulated" in the "mid-1970s."
Actually, it's a
variation of the old "ten can't repay eleven" fallacy that is the perennial
argument of monetary cranks: Since only the principal is lent it is
impossible to repay principal plus interest; since only so much money is paid
out during the course of production, profit is impossible unless there is an
extraneous source of money, etc., etc.
>From:
"Gunnar Tomasson"
>To: "William B. Ryan"
,
>Subject: Re: Keynes Stood On His Head?
>Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:23:20 -0400
>
>Bill:
>
>The point at issue is Keynes' "primary objective".
>
>Your comments are non-responsive thereto.
>
>Gunnar
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: William B. Ryan
> To: gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx ; pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:41 AM
> Subject: Re: Keynes Stood On His Head?
>
>
> "...the primary objective for Keynes was to overcome "sound
money" objections to using Credit Creation for purposes of Final Demand
Inflation in the analytical sense - namely, a technical means of ensuring
Aggregate Sales Proceeds in excess of Aggregate Factor Cost of Output Sold
alias Profits."
> ----------
>
> In terms of the flux-reflux dynamic, the reality is the
reverse of what you imply. It seems you are defining profit to be equal to
"aggregate sales proceeds" minus "aggregate factor cost" in recast of
M-C-M'...
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: Click
Here
|