tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post7717215224620181668..comments2024-03-28T03:24:05.678-04:00Comments on NAKED KEYNESIANISM: Was Keynes always right? A disclaimerMatias Vernengohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09521604894748538215noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-13078789629318267282013-05-09T23:52:07.957-04:002013-05-09T23:52:07.957-04:00I want to know more about Keynes. Can someone sugg...I want to know more about Keynes. Can someone suggest some books that update Keynes' theories "in order to say something coherent, from a logical point of view, and that fits the evidence?"<br /><br />Thanks.Hestalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-6385399897089175182013-05-08T08:03:43.439-04:002013-05-08T08:03:43.439-04:00Not sure how much Keynes understood the problems o...Not sure how much Keynes understood the problems of capital. But the Marginal Efficiency of Capital is aggregate and measured in monetary terms.<br /><br />His discussion of flex prices is in ch 19. His point was that if prices were flex, things would be even worse.<br /><br />But Joan Robinson notes that according to Shove Keynes never spent the five minutes necessary to learn the theory of value. His price theory was non existent.Matias Vernengohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09521604894748538215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-46166219733922024392013-05-08T08:00:02.548-04:002013-05-08T08:00:02.548-04:00(1) and (2) are fine. You could also add liquidity...(1) and (2) are fine. You could also add liquidity preference in (1). For several reasons. There is no need for a well behaved demand schedule for money, which mimics, without any good reason, marginalist demand curves in general. And it's far from clear that all agents always want liquidity. Besides, if money is endogenous it hardly makes sense to distinguish supply and demand for money. On uncertainty, Keynes actually gave it quite a lot of relevance in ch. 12, on long period expectations. I don't think that he dismisses it in 18 or 19 for that matter. Perhaps by those latter chapters he is in a context in which uncertainty is framed within a set of given conventions and institutions, so instability is less of a problem. What you end up having is a sub-optimal situation that is fairly stable.Matias Vernengohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09521604894748538215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-54608297705978697972013-05-07T04:50:52.135-04:002013-05-07T04:50:52.135-04:00Great post.
Would it fair to say that Keynes'...Great post. <br /><br />Would it fair to say that Keynes's mistakes or oversights in the GT include these:<br /><br />(1) the assumption of an exogenous money supply;<br />(2) the marginal efficiency of capital idea;<br />(3) insufficient attention to fundamental uncertainty in Chapter 18. If Keynes had taken uncertainty seriously here, it would have “ruled out any stable functional relationship between investment and the interest rate” (as King, A History of Post Keynesian Economics since 1936, 2002, p. 14, says).<br /><br />Also, do you think Keynes accepted that capital was heterogeneous in the GT?<br /><br />And did he pay sufficient attention to fixprices?<br /><br />regardsLord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.com