Titlebook: Nicholas Kaldor and Mainstream Economics; Confrontation or Con Edward J. Nell (Professor of Economics),Willi Semm Book 1991 Edward J. Nell

主動(dòng)

Kaldor Between Hayek and Keynes, or: Did Nicky Kill Capital Theory?gether attempted the construction of an alternative paradigm to the neo-Classical/neo-Keynesian synthesis. For Joan Robinson and Richard Kahn, the engagement with Keynes’ economics was a continuous one and indeed part of the permanent revolution in economic thinking going on in Cambridge in the 1920

Interferons

gospel

On the Resolution of Conflicts by Compensationsolving by compensation for social as well as individual decision making. Kaldor’s intention in (1939) was to show that the classical argument for free trade does not require interpersonal comparison of utilities. In section 2 Kaldor’s compensation principle is presented in detail together with some

飲料

急性

Profit Squeeze and Keynesian Theoryin determining investment demand and the level of economic activity. Within the system of production, wages are a cost: the lower are profits per unit of production, the lower the stimulus to investment. In a Keynesian view of the macroeconomic structure, however, wages are a source of demand, hence

閑逛

oncologist

Expressly

The Endogeneity of Money the endogeneity or the exogeneity of money, or whether he believed it to be of importance. In his later writings on money he viewed the attempt to control the path of nominal aggregate demand by controlling the path of an arbitrarily defined money supply — the fundamental policy posture of monetari

Fortuitous

On the Endogeneity of Money Supplyon Friedman’s empirical claims that Money causes Nominal Income. One of his criticisms was essentially econometric, namely that Friedman was using as evidence correlations over periods when central bank policies were accommodative. That is, the authorities were deliberately allowing money stocks to

certitude

Change, Continuity, and Originality in Kaldor’s Monetary Theory126). It is well known that Milton Friedman (1970) in his response to Kaldor’s ‘New Monetarism’, called him a Johnny-come-lately. In much more diplomatic terms, this was also James Tobin’s more recent assessment of Kaldor’s involvement in the monetarist debates (1983, p. 36). On the other hand, Brit