Saturday, March 12, 2011
Ch. 7 of Keynes's General Theory
In Ch. 7 Keynes argues that "the exposition in my Treatise on Money is, of course, very confusing and incomplete in the light of the further developments here set forth" (GT, 78). If that is the case, then his Treatise on Money is a complete disaster, a train wreck of a work, because the "further developments" in Ch. 7 is a confusing mess. He continues with his confusing of investment and saving, claiming that his argument makes sense if you consider aggregates rather than individuals. Considering that aggregates is an idiotic idea that makes unlike things like, heterogeneties homogeneous, it is no wonder that this chapter is a mess. It couldn't possibly be anything else.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
You could do with taking a basic econ class dude. It might help you to understand the accounting identities you are objecting to.
Why would Troy state not hire you? Was it for econ?
I have taken basic econ. There are no accounting identities here. Saving is not the same as investing. Period. They are different things. If I have money I am saving up for a rainy day or for a particular thing I want to buy, I'm not investing. I am investing if I buy stocks or lend at interest or buy equipment I can use later but don't plan to use now. As with the majority of things Keynes talks about in GT, he's just plain wrong. Which is why when I did take basic econ., we didn't cover anything Keynes discusses in it.
Troy state was for English.
Troy,
What a lot of people, including Anonymous here, don't understand is that accounting identities only exist ex-post. There is no ex-ante causative relationship, despite what Keynesians and New Keynesians think.
Thank you. That distinction helps a lot.
"What a lot of people, including Anonymous here, don't understand is that accounting identities only exist ex-post. There is no ex-ante causative relationship, despite what Keynesians and New Keynesians think"
Take intro macro dude. Who denies they are ex-post identities? But Troy does not get the sense in which Maynard is using the terms. I look forward to his post on Z and D functions.
Apply for a job at GMU. That may pan out better.
Anon,
I have taught intro and intermediate macro. Using the leading textbooks. The extent to which these accounting identities are abused in the literature is astounding.
The very idea of GDP = C+I+G+(X-M) is simply wrong if viewed causatively. And that is how a great deal of "multiplier" literature is conducted.
Maybe some people need an "intro macro" refresher. Or, more accurately, a broader view of macro than the continuing Keynesian standard.
"The very idea of GDP = C+I+G+(X-M) is simply wrong if viewed causatively. And that is how a great deal of "multiplier" literature is conducted."
name names? I bet you teach at a lower ranked than troy - please step up to the big league game
It's easy to be snide when you hide behind being "anonymous." It is also easy to believe in folk economics like Keynesian because it doesn't challenge our basic instincts about how things work. Folk biology is equally wrong.
I have already talked about how macroeconomics insofar as it is influenced by Keynes, is nonsense. Also, Keynes is wrong about what drives the economy. Between the two, and the fact that economic growth is created by new businesses and not by maintaining old ones (which is the only thing the Keynesian multiplier could possibly do), then Keynes's policies cannot help the economy. As they indeed haven't.
Its easy to twitter about economics when you are permanently unemployed English prof.
I'm a currently underemployed humanities PhD with publications in economics, past and forthcoming. You are a cowardly nobody promulgating folk economics, anonymous.
"I'm a currently underemployed humanities PhD with publications in economics, past and forthcoming. You are a cowardly nobody promulgating folk economics, anonymous."
Yeah - right. What journals?
New rule: I don't answer anyone who signs on as "anonymous". If you want to get an answer, you will sign with your name. It's easy to be a jerk when you are hiding. In fact, I'm not going to allow anyone to sign on as anonymous anymore. We have to know who you are, because only if you take responsibility for your comments, which you can only do if you admit to who you are. I intend for this to be a scholarly blog, and that means maintaining a certain professionalism. And that cannot take place if people are acting rudely while hiding toward professionals like Prof. J. or myself. So when you decide to sign on and act like an adult, you will get your answer and be allowed to participate.
Excellent policy, Troy.
Btw, have you ever read "Failure of the New Economics" by Hazlitt? It is available for free from Mises.org as a .pdf if you haven't.
You're doing a sort of modern version of Hazlitt.
Actually, when I pulled GT off the shelf, I grabbed my copy of "Failure of the New Economics" by Hazlitt.
I don't know if I'm doing a modern Hazlitt, but I do wish I had his audience! :-) What needs to be done is a new version of that book, addressing people like Krugman, going back over his NYT pieces and seeing how his suggestions, etc. have panned out. As I recall, after the tech bubble burst, Krugman was championing the creation of a housing bubble. Well, he got it. But of course he doesn't have to take any responsibility for such a suggestion. It was so long ago in the modern media age, and everyone forgot. Outside of the narrow field of economic geography, nobody should be listening to Krugman.
Post a Comment