Comments for Economic Thought http://www.economicthought.net/blog A heterodox perspective on theory & history Fri, 18 May 2012 03:57:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 Comment on Recent Acquisitions by Garrett Watson http://www.economicthought.net/blog/?p=1472#comment-8112 Garrett Watson Fri, 18 May 2012 03:57:35 +0000 http://www.economicthought.net/blog/?p=1472#comment-8112 I found Keen's book to be very interesting; some of his arguments are a bit sloppy, however. The most interesting part of the book for me was his discussion of General Equilibrium conditions and the Sonneschein-Mantel-Debreu Theorem early on. It has pretty large implications for Austrians as well as Neoclassicals. I found Keen’s book to be very interesting; some of his arguments are a bit sloppy, however. The most interesting part of the book for me was his discussion of General Equilibrium conditions and the Sonneschein-Mantel-Debreu Theorem early on. It has pretty large implications for Austrians as well as Neoclassicals.

]]> Comment on Pigou on Keynes by Jonathan Finegold Catalán http://www.economicthought.net/blog/?p=1470#comment-8110 Jonathan Finegold Catalán Fri, 18 May 2012 03:16:16 +0000 http://www.economicthought.net/blog/?p=1470#comment-8110 Sraffa's review, while including the criticism of Hayek's interest rate theory, is a bit more comprehensive. He also criticizes Hayek's assumption of the neutrality of money (which is only true for the beginning lectures, since real changes to the capital structure require the non-neutrality of money — at first, Hayek assumes the neutrality of money to give an idea of what the capital structure is). Ultimately, Sraffa doesn't really reach the essence of Hayek's argument, instead nitpicking at details that don't really have anything to do with the broad concept of what Hayek was working at. Hayek tried to show this in his later work. As a quick side note, on Sunday I'm planning to publish a quote from Hülsmann's biography of Mises which ddresses this idea of a natural rate of interest independent of money (and why this mythical idea of a barter natural rate of interest isn't an integral part of Austrian capital theory). But, what I am referring to in this post is the general manner by which Sraffa went about attacking Hayek's book (and 'attacking' is the right word). It was much more than academic disagreement; Sraffa attacked Hayek as a bad writer/communicator, and he actually repeats the accusation in his rejoinder to Hayek's reply. It wasn't just an academic debate a la Hayek v. Knight or Hayek v. Pigou, but a hit on Hayek. Sraffa’s review, while including the criticism of Hayek’s interest rate theory, is a bit more comprehensive. He also criticizes Hayek’s assumption of the neutrality of money (which is only true for the beginning lectures, since real changes to the capital structure require the non-neutrality of money — at first, Hayek assumes the neutrality of money to give an idea of what the capital structure is). Ultimately, Sraffa doesn’t really reach the essence of Hayek’s argument, instead nitpicking at details that don’t really have anything to do with the broad concept of what Hayek was working at. Hayek tried to show this in his later work.

As a quick side note, on Sunday I’m planning to publish a quote from Hülsmann’s biography of Mises which ddresses this idea of a natural rate of interest independent of money (and why this mythical idea of a barter natural rate of interest isn’t an integral part of Austrian capital theory).

But, what I am referring to in this post is the general manner by which Sraffa went about attacking Hayek’s book (and ‘attacking’ is the right word). It was much more than academic disagreement; Sraffa attacked Hayek as a bad writer/communicator, and he actually repeats the accusation in his rejoinder to Hayek’s reply. It wasn’t just an academic debate a la Hayek v. Knight or Hayek v. Pigou, but a hit on Hayek.

]]> Comment on Pigou on Keynes by JP Koning http://www.economicthought.net/blog/?p=1470#comment-8109 JP Koning Fri, 18 May 2012 03:06:38 +0000 http://www.economicthought.net/blog/?p=1470#comment-8109 I've never read Sraffa's response to Hayek, just heard what he said second hand. But what I've heard seems decent enough - that there is no single own-rate, but an infinite number of own-rates, one for each commodity. I’ve never read Sraffa’s response to Hayek, just heard what he said second hand. But what I’ve heard seems decent enough – that there is no single own-rate, but an infinite number of own-rates, one for each commodity.

]]> Comment on Recent Acquisitions by Daniel Kuehn http://www.economicthought.net/blog/?p=1472#comment-8090 Daniel Kuehn Thu, 17 May 2012 22:47:34 +0000 http://www.economicthought.net/blog/?p=1472#comment-8090 Howson has written some good stuff on Keynes and has argued that there is a lot more continuity in his thought than a lot of people suggest (I agree strongly with that point). Howson has written some good stuff on Keynes and has argued that there is a lot more continuity in his thought than a lot of people suggest (I agree strongly with that point).

]]> Comment on Horwitz on Free Banking by MH http://www.economicthought.net/blog/?p=1457#comment-7910 MH Wed, 16 May 2012 21:22:28 +0000 http://www.economicthought.net/blog/?p=1457#comment-7910 I finally got it. I will read it carefully. Thank you! I finally got it. I will read it carefully. Thank you!

]]> Comment on Horwitz on Free Banking by Jonathan Finegold Catalán http://www.economicthought.net/blog/?p=1457#comment-7909 Jonathan Finegold Catalán Wed, 16 May 2012 21:06:39 +0000 http://www.economicthought.net/blog/?p=1457#comment-7909 I haven't had time to read it very closely. I will email it to you (assuming the email you used to comment here is your correct one). Also, "Lord Keynes" goes over the argument <a href="http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2012/05/free-banking-in-australia.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. I haven’t had time to read it very closely. I will email it to you (assuming the email you used to comment here is your correct one). Also, “Lord Keynes” goes over the argument here.

]]> Comment on Horwitz on Free Banking by MH http://www.economicthought.net/blog/?p=1457#comment-7907 MH Wed, 16 May 2012 20:54:45 +0000 http://www.economicthought.net/blog/?p=1457#comment-7907 Have you read the paper written by Hickson and Turner? I do not have access to it but I want to learn more. Something is wrong. The data did not show that the banks had been reckless or irresponsible. Have you read the paper written by Hickson and Turner? I do not have access to it but I want to learn more. Something is wrong. The data did not show that the banks had been reckless or irresponsible.

]]> Comment on Fiduciary Cycles by Gene Callahan http://www.economicthought.net/blog/?p=1443#comment-7882 Gene Callahan Wed, 16 May 2012 17:50:58 +0000 http://www.economicthought.net/blog/?p=1443#comment-7882 Well, Chris, what does starting from a mythical state of laissez faire have to do with a recommendation to move to free banking from where we really are? Well, Chris, what does starting from a mythical state of laissez faire have to do with a recommendation to move to free banking from where we really are?

]]> Comment on Fiduciary Cycles by Jonathan Finegold Catalán http://www.economicthought.net/blog/?p=1443#comment-7876 Jonathan Finegold Catalán Wed, 16 May 2012 16:54:23 +0000 http://www.economicthought.net/blog/?p=1443#comment-7876 We'll have to agree to disagree, but a final point: you are clearly confusing demand for inside with demand for outside money, and you are clearly confusing reserves (i.e. idle deposits) of inside money with reserves of outside money. Yes, a rise in demand for money will increase the supply of idle inside money; this is not the same mechanism which influences the use of outside money. We’ll have to agree to disagree, but a final point: you are clearly confusing demand for inside with demand for outside money, and you are clearly confusing reserves (i.e. idle deposits) of inside money with reserves of outside money. Yes, a rise in demand for money will increase the supply of idle inside money; this is not the same mechanism which influences the use of outside money.

]]> Comment on Fiduciary Cycles by Jonathan Finegold Catalán http://www.economicthought.net/blog/?p=1443#comment-7875 Jonathan Finegold Catalán Wed, 16 May 2012 16:49:57 +0000 http://www.economicthought.net/blog/?p=1443#comment-7875 Err, <i>right</i>, but the "possibility of a negative balance in the clearing mechanism" <i>changes with changes in preference of old and new depositors</i>. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this. Err, right, but the “possibility of a negative balance in the clearing mechanism” changes with changes in preference of old and new depositors. I’m not sure what’s so hard to understand about this.

]]>