Titlebook: Classical versus Neoclassical Monetary Theories; The Roots, Ruts, and Will E. Mason,William N. Butos Book 1996 Springer Science+Business Me

加強防衛(wèi)

bonnet

Classical Monetary Theory,modities were similarly explained for the simple reason that, in classical analysis, money was a commodity, namely, specie, i.e., a particular fabrication of precious metal (Mason 1963, pp. 42–43, 55–56).. “The introduction of money,” observed John Stuart Mill (1871, p. 619 [italics mine]), “is a me

surrogate

The Neoclassical Inversion of Classical Monetary Theory,assical analysis. The postclassical controversy between the commodity and the quantity schools of monetary theory originated as a contest between halftruths.. Each side, ignoring the classical distinction between the long-run and short-run values of money,. elaborated one aspect of classical monetar

anesthesia

Cambridge Confirmation of the Neoclassical Inversion,sical in conception. Eprime Eshag’s review (1963, p. 1) of Cambridge monetary theory begins with the following statement:.The laws which determine the value of money are, according to Marshall, the same laws on which the general theory of value is based. In other words, the value of money, like the

Ethics

讓步

,Economic Darwinism Versus Gresham’s Law in the “Development” of Monetary Theory,alue theory, where limitation of the variables by the . assumption reduces the relevant inferences to the inexorability of mathematical logic. In macroeconomics, which, by contrast, must deal with the . that do not remain ., such isolation of variables and simplification of analysis is impossible, I