I'm reading Kaldor's 'Scourge of Monetarism'-I just downloaded it last night on Amazon. I had initially wanted to read his book arguing for Economics Without Equilibrium as Lord Keynes over at Social Democracy for the 21st Century had mentioned it.
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2013/03/kaldor-on-economics-without-equilibrium.html
However, at this point the cost of it is very prohibitive.
http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Without-Equilibrium-Memorial-Lectures/dp/087332336X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1388230691&sr=1-1&keywords=kaldor+economics+without+equilibrium
LK argues that if you want to focus on what especially separates Neoclassical economics from Post Keynesian it's that PK theory is 'economics without (Walrasian) equilibirium.
"If one were state the difference between Post Keynesianism and mainstream neoclassical theory, it might be summed up with the idea that Post Keynesian theory is “economics without (Walrasian) equilibrium.”
Mike Sanowski argues that the belief in the price mechanism and the simple supply-demand model that NCers believe holds in most markets only really holds up in the financial market-in most markets prices don't work the way s-d models assume.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/12/what-makes-businesses-hire-supply-or.html?showComment=1387937917571#c4233927204600087799
However, while Economics Without Equilibrium is totally unaffordable Kaldor's epic The Scourge of Monetarism is very affordable. If you are sick and tired of Sumner and friends this is the book you probably want to start with if you want to get to the bottom of what's wrong with Sumner's whole pitch.
http://www.amazon.com/Scourge-Monetarism-Radcliffe-Lectures-ebook/dp/B001M0O4KY/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1388231376&sr=1-1&keywords=kaldor+the+scourge+of+monetarism
The trouble with Market Monetarism is that: it's still Monetarism with a slightly embellished name. Sumner's whole pitch is that Market Monetarism is very different than Old Monetarism-that 2.0 corrects the errors of 1.0. However, at the end of the day it's still Monetarism and it's still old wine in new bottles.
Need it be said that Monetarism 1.0 was itself already old wine in new bottles? Friedman claimed to have discovered something in his and Anna Schwartz's The Monetary History of the United States that justified a return to the old Quantity Theory of Money (QTM) that had gone out the window when Keynes published The General Theory.
We suggested that difference between PK and NC theory is perhaps that PK eschews (Walrasian) equilibrium. The big difference between Monetarism and Keynesianism is that Monetarism needs the money supply to be totally exogenous. It requires the velocity of circulation and the demand for money to be stable. What the 80s did was bring total disrepute to Monetarism by its spectacular failure. The minute Volcker started focusing on the growth of money in a vacuum without reference to the interest rate, both the interest rate and inflation took off and one point both exceeded 20 percent.
If money is endogenous, however, Sumner hasn't somehow rescued Monetarism by declaring that the market does the heavy lifting and claiming that it's not Friedman's long and variable lags but variable leads that monetary policy has its impact.
P.S. Again, thank you Daniel for inadvertently giving us the perfect description of Monetary Offset-'code for letting poor people starve.' From now on that's our working definition of Monetary Offset.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/12/dont-tell-sumner-does-outrage-over.html
P.S.S. I notice that some commentator was talking about commentators who are using Sumner's blog to freeload of while criticizing him to secure their own followers. I don't need Sumner to have a blog as any cursory look through the archives will show I can write about lots of things that have nothing to do with him-politics. However, I do think right now that it's important to engage him-not so much on his blog as he usually tries to do honest engagement as little as possible but in my blog anyway.
We have the same old zombie ideas being foisted on the public yet again and I think it's important to give as much as the counterargument as you can. I do wish that some others might jump in a little-I have reason to believe that a few major economists might try calling him out with the start of the new year. OK, I can't say too much-or for once I shouldn't-but from my own correspondence it looks like at least one very prominent economist may call him out soon or so they told me in an email-after the first of the year.
I won't tell you who it is but everyone would recognize the name immediately-as I haven't gotten permission to do this and I don't want to betray a confidence I hold in very high value. Let's hope so-calling out Sumner is not an easy game and I could really use some technically trained economists where I can find them. I will say this 'technically trained, very prominent economist' I'm rather cryptically telling you that I've had email correspondences with: this is a very cool person, who really does care about the average guy, not at all with the pompous attitude you see in people like Sumner or Stephen Williamson-though they do come from the same NC establishment.
I really fought in this description not to reveal the gender though I wanted to. However, I will give this hint: what sex are most economists? That's what this person is. Have I said too much?
P.S. Not that I'm trying to dismiss women in economics, I think it may be the case that today more and more women are becoming economists. However, on the blogosphere I don't think it's false to say that most of the major econ bloggers are males.
P.S.S. The reason I decided to reveal the gender is that I want to be able to shout from the rooftops 'I'm actually in email correspondences with-' but I can't do that. I could ask them but I want to wait for now and give them time.
UPDATE: I see Kaldor had a great quote from Keynes in The Scourge of Monetarism: 'Monetary policy is a campaign against the standard of life of the working classes.' Unfortunately I don't see that Kaldor mentions where Keynes said this other than he said it in a 'pamphlet' back in the 20s in protest of the decision of the British government to return to the prewar gold standard-at the same price.
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2013/03/kaldor-on-economics-without-equilibrium.html
However, at this point the cost of it is very prohibitive.
http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Without-Equilibrium-Memorial-Lectures/dp/087332336X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1388230691&sr=1-1&keywords=kaldor+economics+without+equilibrium
LK argues that if you want to focus on what especially separates Neoclassical economics from Post Keynesian it's that PK theory is 'economics without (Walrasian) equilibirium.
"If one were state the difference between Post Keynesianism and mainstream neoclassical theory, it might be summed up with the idea that Post Keynesian theory is “economics without (Walrasian) equilibrium.”
Mike Sanowski argues that the belief in the price mechanism and the simple supply-demand model that NCers believe holds in most markets only really holds up in the financial market-in most markets prices don't work the way s-d models assume.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/12/what-makes-businesses-hire-supply-or.html?showComment=1387937917571#c4233927204600087799
However, while Economics Without Equilibrium is totally unaffordable Kaldor's epic The Scourge of Monetarism is very affordable. If you are sick and tired of Sumner and friends this is the book you probably want to start with if you want to get to the bottom of what's wrong with Sumner's whole pitch.
http://www.amazon.com/Scourge-Monetarism-Radcliffe-Lectures-ebook/dp/B001M0O4KY/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1388231376&sr=1-1&keywords=kaldor+the+scourge+of+monetarism
The trouble with Market Monetarism is that: it's still Monetarism with a slightly embellished name. Sumner's whole pitch is that Market Monetarism is very different than Old Monetarism-that 2.0 corrects the errors of 1.0. However, at the end of the day it's still Monetarism and it's still old wine in new bottles.
Need it be said that Monetarism 1.0 was itself already old wine in new bottles? Friedman claimed to have discovered something in his and Anna Schwartz's The Monetary History of the United States that justified a return to the old Quantity Theory of Money (QTM) that had gone out the window when Keynes published The General Theory.
We suggested that difference between PK and NC theory is perhaps that PK eschews (Walrasian) equilibrium. The big difference between Monetarism and Keynesianism is that Monetarism needs the money supply to be totally exogenous. It requires the velocity of circulation and the demand for money to be stable. What the 80s did was bring total disrepute to Monetarism by its spectacular failure. The minute Volcker started focusing on the growth of money in a vacuum without reference to the interest rate, both the interest rate and inflation took off and one point both exceeded 20 percent.
If money is endogenous, however, Sumner hasn't somehow rescued Monetarism by declaring that the market does the heavy lifting and claiming that it's not Friedman's long and variable lags but variable leads that monetary policy has its impact.
P.S. Again, thank you Daniel for inadvertently giving us the perfect description of Monetary Offset-'code for letting poor people starve.' From now on that's our working definition of Monetary Offset.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/12/dont-tell-sumner-does-outrage-over.html
P.S.S. I notice that some commentator was talking about commentators who are using Sumner's blog to freeload of while criticizing him to secure their own followers. I don't need Sumner to have a blog as any cursory look through the archives will show I can write about lots of things that have nothing to do with him-politics. However, I do think right now that it's important to engage him-not so much on his blog as he usually tries to do honest engagement as little as possible but in my blog anyway.
We have the same old zombie ideas being foisted on the public yet again and I think it's important to give as much as the counterargument as you can. I do wish that some others might jump in a little-I have reason to believe that a few major economists might try calling him out with the start of the new year. OK, I can't say too much-or for once I shouldn't-but from my own correspondence it looks like at least one very prominent economist may call him out soon or so they told me in an email-after the first of the year.
I won't tell you who it is but everyone would recognize the name immediately-as I haven't gotten permission to do this and I don't want to betray a confidence I hold in very high value. Let's hope so-calling out Sumner is not an easy game and I could really use some technically trained economists where I can find them. I will say this 'technically trained, very prominent economist' I'm rather cryptically telling you that I've had email correspondences with: this is a very cool person, who really does care about the average guy, not at all with the pompous attitude you see in people like Sumner or Stephen Williamson-though they do come from the same NC establishment.
I really fought in this description not to reveal the gender though I wanted to. However, I will give this hint: what sex are most economists? That's what this person is. Have I said too much?
P.S. Not that I'm trying to dismiss women in economics, I think it may be the case that today more and more women are becoming economists. However, on the blogosphere I don't think it's false to say that most of the major econ bloggers are males.
P.S.S. The reason I decided to reveal the gender is that I want to be able to shout from the rooftops 'I'm actually in email correspondences with-' but I can't do that. I could ask them but I want to wait for now and give them time.
UPDATE: I see Kaldor had a great quote from Keynes in The Scourge of Monetarism: 'Monetary policy is a campaign against the standard of life of the working classes.' Unfortunately I don't see that Kaldor mentions where Keynes said this other than he said it in a 'pamphlet' back in the 20s in protest of the decision of the British government to return to the prewar gold standard-at the same price.
No comments:
Post a Comment