Re: PKT and The Washington Consensus

[pdavidso <pdavidso@xxxxxxx>]

Your "Ad hominem argument" statements, do not deserve a reply.

Paul

>===== Original Message From Gunnar Tómasson <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
=====
>Paul:
>
>Let me answer your points one by one.
>
>1.  > I guess Gunnar never heard of consumer credit -- or households
>refinancing
>> their residents when the market value rises and he equity taken out is
>used to
>> buy consumrt goods.
>
>Ad hominem argument.
>
>2.  > You would not make such a mistake Gunnar if you read Keynes's
>amendment to the
>> GT in the EJ in1937 -- on the finance motive.
>
>Ad hominem argument.
>
>3.  > This has nothing to do weth the ex post definition of savings --
>Keynes might
>> have been better off if he had stuck to the TREATISE definition where
>> everything produced was either AVAILABLE INCOME [Consumption in the GT] or
>NON
>> AVAILABLE INCOME [ investment in the GT].. It would then be absolutely
>clear
>> that anything classified as NON AVAILABLE income can not be consumed in
>the
>> current accounting period -- and therefore must be "saved".
>
>The concept of NON-AVAILABLE INCOME is an oxymoron - one that Keynes
>struggled with in the Treatise and, having failed to clear his mind on the
>subject matter, pushed it into the background in the General Theory under
>the pretext that "whilst it is found that money enters into the economic
>scheme in an essential and peculiar manner, [he chose to let] technical
>monetary detail fall[] into the background."
>
>For surely ALL Factor Income generated in the Production Process is
>"available" to Factor Income Recipients in the first instance - their
>disposition of such Income is another matter.

Yes the income recipients can spend all of this period;s income this period,
but if they want to spend more of their aggregate income on  consumables
during the current period than the available output produced during the
current period,  and if production takes time , then, by definition, they can
only buy available output - nonavailable existing output is not available for
consumption.

And that's not true by definition -- Now change available to C and
nonavailable to non-consumable goods -- and you are back to the GT
classification system.

>
>4.  > Your submission is rejected -- on the grounds that you are fighting
>the
>> Neoclassical synthesis Keynesians such as Samuelson and Solow and not
>Keynes
>> of American Post Keynesians.
>
>The point at issue concerns Keynes himself - not Samuelson, Solow, or
>Davidson.
>
>Hence, my submission stands unchallenged on substantive grounds.

I don't think so!!

Paul

Paul Davidson
Editor, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics
University of Tennessee
SMC 503
Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-0550
office phone #;(865)974-3303; office fax#(865)974-4601
home phone and fax # (561)369-1951
email pdavidson@xxxxxxx
http://econ.bus.utk.edu/Davidson.html