Re: PKT and The Washington Consensus

[Harry Veeder <eo200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>> Gunnar Tómasson:
>>
>> 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.

>Paul Davidson:
>
> 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.

How long is "this period"?

I don't think economic theory should force-fit the economy into periods.
Periods only exist in the minds of accountants.


Harry