est rates and assumptions.
---
SUMMARY: This notice informs the public of the interest rates and
assumptions to be used under certain Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation regulations. These rates and assumptions are published
elsewh
I just ran across this quote from Richard Clarida of the Treasury Dept.
"We tend to think of automatic stabilizers in textbook
Keynesian terms, but a new automatic stabilizer for the
United States is the interaction between
long-term interest rates and mortgage refinancing."
I wond
I wrote:
>>the argument is that long term rates are determined by supply and
demand
>>'in the long end' so if government sells more long term securities
long
>>term rates get pushed up.
Rakesh replies:
>Which then pushes up mortgage rates, weakening the stimulus through
>refinancing.
Long rat
il the new (lower) equilibrium
rate of interest is attained.
Keynesians (Post Keynesians, at least) would see things very
differently.
> If I understand the argument correctly, people
>respond to deficits by saving more, and that puts downward pressure on
>interest rates.
well that's
The relationship between long and short term rates is a mystery. Government
officials have long tried to manipulate his relationship. Back in the Kennedy
administration, there was something called Operation Twist, which was supposed
to manipulate relationship. It was not very successful, as I r
> >
> >the argument is that long term rates are determined by supply and demand
> >'in the long end' so if government sells more long term securities long
> >term rates get pushed up.
>
> Which then pushes up mortgage rates, weakening the stimulus through
> refinancing.
All this makes me wonder a
not at present. I think he is suggesting
that the Bush has so wrecked the fiscal situation of the govt that it
will be forced to turn to the bond market on a permanent basis and
thus continue to exert upward pressure on the long term interest
rates. Of course the govt could in response
;s rate cuts will soon lead to a bout of inflation.
Whether the bond market is fearing inflationary growth or stagflation
I don't know.
> If I understand the argument correctly, people
>respond to deficits by saving more, and that puts downward pressure on
>interest rates.
well t
Also, all during the 80s when deficits were at record highs, interest
rates were constantly declining, albeit from a very high starting point
due to restrictive monetary policy in the early 80s.
As far as nongovernmental sector deficits causing high interest rates,
unless the government budget
The Enron Prize is the high-point of the article.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The article below suggests that the US government's noises about possible
future deficits (which Alan Greenspan contributed to) mean that long-term
interest rates stay high (which is weakening the effectiveness of monetary
stimulus). Does anyone know what the logic behind this (if any)?
At 04/10/01 23:54 +0100, I wrote:
according to Marx's description of capitalist
crises, interest rates ought now to be rising:
Marx refers to a "money
famine".
Yet the most perceptive conventional commentators are now pointing to a
liquidity trap - that the central banks cannot
It is clear that not only is there a synchronised slow-down in economic
activity in the capitalist heartlands. There is a coordinated reduction in
interest rates set by the central banks.
Yet according to Marx's description of capitalist crises, interest rates
ought now to be rising:
&q
Chris Burford wrote:
>
> I shall take silence as consent.
Oh, come on Chris. There are *laws* against that kind of reasoning.
Mark
At 30/06/01 07:15 +0100, I wrote:
>I would appreciate criticism on whether the connection I make is
>reasonable, and whether Schweickart in his gentle exposition is doing
>violence to a) the facts b) marxist political economy.
>
>Otherwise I suggest the list takes the implications of this argume
al between those who
get the interest rate and those who unfortunately do not. That I suggest is
the significance of even zero real interest rates if there is any inflation
at all. It is in fact independent of inflation or even, conceivably,
deflation.
DS:
"If we make the functional dist
I had meant to come back to Rob on his post of 7th December
Thought-provoking post, Chris! (Although
I doubt you'll have convinced
Dennis) I've been speculating Greenspan could quite soon reach a
point
where cutting interest rates would not be an available option (coz
he
couldn&#x
US Federal Reserve first cut rates, as Crockett says, in
order to save the system, and was subsequently slow to raise them. All
the
emphasis now is on raising interest rates to cool the boom.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-M
> At 01:22 PM 04/02/2000 -0500, Barnet wrote:
> >Perhaps someone could summarize (or supply citations on) current
> >(heterodox) thinking on interest rate determination
> >(in the U.S.).
>
You may wish to consider the following citations on current hetero economics and
to start. Marx rejected the idea that the interest
rate could be determined by labor-value (so that there was no "natural rate
of interest" analogous to Smithian "natural prices," prices of production).
Basically, for Marx, interest rates are determined by the supply and dema
Perhaps someone could summarize (or supply citations on)
current (heterodox) thinking on interest rate determination
(in the U.S.).
Seat of the pants empiricism suggests that everything
just follows the discount rate but there's probably
a better story. I'm woefully behind the times on this
subj
Although the stock market has exhibited relative
indifference to the upward march in Treasury bond
yields, rising interest rates are not good news for equities. In
the simplest terms, higher bond yields -- currently 6.16
percent for the 30-year Treasury
> Robert Naiman wrote:
> >>So how does the U.S. look compared to other OECD countries if you count
> >>institutionalized adults as part of the population? Can one also account
> >>for the role of the military?
>
> Doug gave us the figures on incarceration, but what about the military? I
> remembe
[PEN-L:6783] Re: Re: EPR, prison, interest rates
> Date: Thursday, May 13, 1999 4:19 PM
>
> Doug wrote:
> >If you counted all U.S. prisoners as unemployed, it would push up the U
> >rate from around 4.3% to 5.6%. Details also forthcoming in LBO.
>
> If most of these are
Robert Naiman wrote:
>>So how does the U.S. look compared to other OECD countries if you count
>>institutionalized adults as part of the population? Can one also account
>>for the role of the military?
Doug gave us the figures on incarceration, but what about the military? I
remember reading some
Robert Naiman wrote:
>So how does the U.S. look compared to other OECD countries if you count
>institutionalized adults as part of the population? Can one also account
>for the role of the military?
Well I was going to have a chart of international incarceration
comparisons, as part of the quart
nt for the role
of the military?
And has anyone tried to control for interest rates in doing such a comparison? Such a
comparison might shed some light on whether European unemployment is in fact due to
the dread specter of social democracy.
-bob
---
Robert Nai
Doug wrote:
>If you counted all U.S. prisoners as unemployed, it would push up the U
>rate from around 4.3% to 5.6%. Details also forthcoming in LBO.
If most of these are structurally unemployed (i.e., having the wrong skills
or living in the wrong location, like the inner city, for the jobs
avai
It has just been announced here in New Zealand that interest rates
will be removed from the Consumer Price Index. The Reserve Bank
Governor says "Most economists are agreed that interest rates should
not be in the inflation figure and many major countries already
exclude them."
C
I'm trying to understand how trade (e.g., exports) affects both
interest rates and foreign exchange rates.
For example, suppose England and Japan trade in the following manner:
England (1) Japan
|| En
st-profit projects that
are invested in. Margaret Blair did estimates of what Jensen called "free
cash flow" - the money firms can't invest for a return higher than the cost
of capital - at the firm level for the 1970s and 1980s. The sharp rise in
real interest rates meant that f
decade or so
>US nonfinancial corps have transferred (through M&A, stock buybacks, and
>dividends) about as much money to shareholders - who have literally
>contributed less than nothing to finance their firms' inestments - as they
>invested tangibly. Though interest rates are
Paul Altesamn wrote, in part :
>
>Doesn't this leave two possible outcomes (at this level of analysis;
>obviously there are many other possibilities when additional factors are
>considered:
> 1) it may be that the industrial entities will shift so much of their
>funds into the "money as comm
Paul Altesamn wrote, in part :
>
>Doesn't this leave two possible outcomes (at this level of analysis;
>obviously there are many other possibilities when additional factors are
>considered:
> 1) it may be that the industrial entities will shift so much of their
>funds into the "money as comm
At 9:01 AM 1/18/97, Patrick Bond wrote:
>Doug I thought we'd been discussing this on the M-I list last month with
>the common assumption that many big US firms did indeed beef up their
>treasury operations during the 1980s, to catch the inordinately high real
>rate of interest (Ford, GM, GE etc).
At 9:01 AM 1/18/97, Patrick Bond wrote:
>Doug I thought we'd been discussing this on the M-I list last month with
>the common assumption that many big US firms did indeed beef up their
>treasury operations during the 1980s, to catch the inordinately high real
>rate of interest (Ford, GM, GE etc).
At 9:00 AM 1/18/97, Patrick Bond wrote:
>I had the impression in the US that at least indirectly, through banks
>becoming investment banks thanks to Glass-Steagall deregulation, such
>a tendency was quite marked. That is, a relinking of financial investment
>to surplus value extraction in the pro
At 9:00 AM 1/18/97, Patrick Bond wrote:
>I had the impression in the US that at least indirectly, through banks
>becoming investment banks thanks to Glass-Steagall deregulation, such
>a tendency was quite marked. That is, a relinking of financial investment
>to surplus value extraction in the pro
> Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 18/January/1997 02:28am
>It's not so much that industry is shifting its surplus funds to finance...
Doug I thought we'd been discussing this on the M-I list last month with
the common assumption that many big US firms did indeed beef up their
treasury operations
> Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 18/January/1997 02:28am
>It's not so much that industry is shifting its surplus funds to finance...
Doug I thought we'd been discussing this on the M-I list last month with
the common assumption that many big US firms did indeed beef up their
treasury operations
> Paul Altesman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 18/January/1997 01:08am
>Hilferding's analysis (Banks structure Industry) may well have well
>been true in Germany *of his time*...
Not so, in that he overestimated the power of finance capital and not its
vulnerability to speculative crashes. At one point Hi
> Paul Altesman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 18/January/1997 01:08am
>Hilferding's analysis (Banks structure Industry) may well have well
>been true in Germany *of his time*...
Not so, in that he overestimated the power of finance capital and not its
vulnerability to speculative crashes. At one point Hi
I agree.
>
> Absolutely, but I wouldn't then want to go say this made finance
> epiphenomenal, or secondary, or parasitical, or euthanizable, or any of the
> other things that people sometimes say. Capitalist production is about the
> accumulation of money and the transformation of everything int
I agree.
>
> Absolutely, but I wouldn't then want to go say this made finance
> epiphenomenal, or secondary, or parasitical, or euthanizable, or any of the
> other things that people sometimes say. Capitalist production is about the
> accumulation of money and the transformation of everything int
At 6:04 PM 1/17/97, Michael Perelman wrote:
>I would go beyond what Doug says about the fuzzy boundary between
>finance and industry. Old time capitalists were more rooted in their
>industry. Today, everything is screened via ROI, everything is treated
>as if it is saleable, capable of being se
At 6:04 PM 1/17/97, Michael Perelman wrote:
>I would go beyond what Doug says about the fuzzy boundary between
>finance and industry. Old time capitalists were more rooted in their
>industry. Today, everything is screened via ROI, everything is treated
>as if it is saleable, capable of being se
I would go beyond what Doug says about the fuzzy boundary between
finance and industry. Old time capitalists were more rooted in their
industry. Today, everything is screened via ROI, everything is treated
as if it is saleable, capable of being securitized
--
Michael Perelman
Economics De
I would go beyond what Doug says about the fuzzy boundary between
finance and industry. Old time capitalists were more rooted in their
industry. Today, everything is screened via ROI, everything is treated
as if it is saleable, capable of being securitized
--
Michael Perelman
Economics De
transferred (through M&A, stock buybacks, and
dividends) about as much money to shareholders - who have literally
contributed less than nothing to finance their firms' inestments - as they
invested tangibly. Though interest rates are down from the 1980s, rentiers
still extract great piles of additi
transferred (through M&A, stock buybacks, and
dividends) about as much money to shareholders - who have literally
contributed less than nothing to finance their firms' inestments - as they
invested tangibly. Though interest rates are down from the 1980s, rentiers
still extract great piles of additi
At 06:26 PM 1/16/97 -0800, Doug Henwood wrote:
>At 6:05 PM 1/16/97, DICKENS, EDWIN (201)-408-3024 wrote:
>
>> And to my mind the theory of interest
>>rate determination is crucial to filling in that lacunae.
>
>OK, Tom - so what's the Dickens theory of interest ra
At 06:26 PM 1/16/97 -0800, Doug Henwood wrote:
>At 6:05 PM 1/16/97, DICKENS, EDWIN (201)-408-3024 wrote:
>
>> And to my mind the theory of interest
>>rate determination is crucial to filling in that lacunae.
>
>OK, Tom - so what's the Dickens theory of interest ra
At 6:05 PM 1/16/97, DICKENS, EDWIN (201)-408-3024 wrote:
> And to my mind the theory of interest
>rate determination is crucial to filling in that lacunae.
OK, Tom - so what's the Dickens theory of interest rates?
Doug
--
Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
250 W 85 St
New York NY
At 6:05 PM 1/16/97, DICKENS, EDWIN (201)-408-3024 wrote:
> And to my mind the theory of interest
>rate determination is crucial to filling in that lacunae.
OK, Tom - so what's the Dickens theory of interest rates?
Doug
--
Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
250 W 85 St
New York NY
Trevor Evans believes that Marx's theory of the interest rate is
more or less "complete." As an example of what this means, Trevor
points to Marx's rejection of a natural rate of interest. Trevor
then speculates that Marx might have a loanable funds type theory
of interest rate determination tha
Trevor Evans believes that Marx's theory of the interest rate is
more or less "complete." As an example of what this means, Trevor
points to Marx's rejection of a natural rate of interest. Trevor
then speculates that Marx might have a loanable funds type theory
of interest rate determination tha
I'm not sure that Marx's theory of interest rates is as incomplete as Edwin
Dickens suggests. The manuscripts are rambling but a central point is
clear: there is no natural rate of interest, i.e. the market interest rate
does not revolve around some value that is determined by underly
I'm not sure that Marx's theory of interest rates is as incomplete as Edwin
Dickens suggests. The manuscripts are rambling but a central point is
clear: there is no natural rate of interest, i.e. the market interest rate
does not revolve around some value that is determined by underly
>>> Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 13/January/1997 08:52pm
>>>
At 10:13 AM 1/13/97, DICKENS, EDWIN (201)-408-3024 wrote:
>>I'm skeptical, but open to
>>anyone who wants to try and resolve the issue by constructing
>>an index of the relative strengths of financial and
>>industrial capital.
>Whil
>>> Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 13/January/1997 08:52pm
>>>
At 10:13 AM 1/13/97, DICKENS, EDWIN (201)-408-3024 wrote:
>>I'm skeptical, but open to
>>anyone who wants to try and resolve the issue by constructing
>>an index of the relative strengths of financial and
>>industrial capital.
>Whil
>At 10:13 AM 1/13/97, DICKENS, EDWIN (201)-408-3024 wrote:
>
>>I'm skeptical, but open to
>>anyone who wants to try and resolve the issue by constructing
>>an index of the relative strengths of financial and
>>industrial capital.
>
>While I'd never go so far as Hilferding and argue that they've be
>At 10:13 AM 1/13/97, DICKENS, EDWIN (201)-408-3024 wrote:
>
>>I'm skeptical, but open to
>>anyone who wants to try and resolve the issue by constructing
>>an index of the relative strengths of financial and
>>industrial capital.
>
>While I'd never go so far as Hilferding and argue that they've be
Tom Dickens writes: >>I think there is a good reason why Marx did
not have a complete theory of the interest rate--namely, Marx's
initial results prompted him to postpone further consideration of
the issue until he got to his planned book on the state.<<
Also, his stuff on
Tom Dickens writes: >>I think there is a good reason why Marx did
not have a complete theory of the interest rate--namely, Marx's
initial results prompted him to postpone further consideration of
the issue until he got to his planned book on the state.<<
Also, his stuff on
At 10:13 AM 1/13/97, DICKENS, EDWIN (201)-408-3024 wrote:
>I'm skeptical, but open to
>anyone who wants to try and resolve the issue by constructing
>an index of the relative strengths of financial and
>industrial capital.
While I'd never go so far as Hilferding and argue that they've become one
At 10:13 AM 1/13/97, DICKENS, EDWIN (201)-408-3024 wrote:
>I'm skeptical, but open to
>anyone who wants to try and resolve the issue by constructing
>an index of the relative strengths of financial and
>industrial capital.
While I'd never go so far as Hilferding and argue that they've become one
DICKENS, EDWIN wrote:
> I think there is a good reason why Marx did not have a complete
> theory of the interest rate--namely, Marx's initial results
> prompted him to postpone further consideration of the issue
> until he got to his planned book on the state.
> After abandoning his initial effo
DICKENS, EDWIN wrote:
> I think there is a good reason why Marx did not have a complete
> theory of the interest rate--namely, Marx's initial results
> prompted him to postpone further consideration of the issue
> until he got to his planned book on the state.
> After abandoning his initial effo
Doug Henwood writes:
>Well, Tom, what do you think Marx's theory of interest rate
>determination was?
I think there is a good reason why Marx did not have a complete
theory of the interest rate--namely, Marx's initial results
prompted him to postpone further consideration of the issue
until he g
Doug Henwood writes:
>Well, Tom, what do you think Marx's theory of interest rate
>determination was?
I think there is a good reason why Marx did not have a complete
theory of the interest rate--namely, Marx's initial results
prompted him to postpone further consideration of the issue
until he g
rences, or 'errors' as they are called
in mathematics, compensate each other and vanish whenever
a certain minimum number of workers are employed together."
What does this have to do with interest rates, etc? Well, my
impression is that Marx accepted a key component of
19th century s
At 5:24 PM 1/10/97, DICKENS, EDWIN (201)-408-3024 wrote:
>But quoting these passages only begs the question of the
>determinants of the average level of the interest rate...
Well, Tom, what do you think Marx's theory of interest rate determination was?
Doug
--
Doug Henwood
Left Business Obser
We now know how to determine important fragments from
unimportant ones: Their length and the number of times
Marx broke off in mid-sentence because his train of thought
had shifted to some other topic. We are dealing, for
the most part, with stream of consciousness writing. Given
the number of
Tom Dickens writes, in part,
>Gil Skillman has provided us with "the key passage" concerning
>this issue. I like that. Whan sifting through a mass of
>fragments that Engels admitted to not knowing how to make
>sense of, how does Gil Skillman identify the key passages?
I'm glad you like it, To
Trevor Evans now appears to hold the position that, for Marx, the
market interest rate fluctuates around an average level which
is determined by, "amongst other things, . the relative strength
of industrial capital and financial capital, institutional
factors and even convention." Can we thus con
In response to the following passage by Trevor Evans,
>>And yet...Marx and Keynes both argued that the interest rate
>>is determined by the relative balance of supply and demand
>>in the market for money capital.
Edwin (AKA Tom) Dickens asks:
>Where did they do that?
The key passage is in Volu
Edwin Dickens asks where Marx and Keynes state that the rate of interest is
determined by the balance of supply and demand for loan capital.
In Capital, vol. 3, Marx distinguishes between the avarage rate of interest
and the market rate of interest. The first refers to the average over the
busine
Trevor Evans wrote:
>And yet...Marx and Keynes both argued that the interest rate
>is determined by the relative balance of supply and demand
>in the market for money capital.
Where did they do that?
Edwin Dickens
On 9 Jan 97 at 13:15, Trevor Evans wrote:
> . . .
> Surprisingly, many European unions, while concerned at the short-term
> deflationary impact, accept that reducing government deficits is desirable
> in the long term, in order to promote lower interest rates and more
> investm
impact, accept that reducing government deficits is desirable
in the long term, in order to promote lower interest rates and more
investment.
This position used to be identified with monetarists, and when Clinton
accepted the need to cut the US deficit, I assumed it was just part of his
accomodation
Pen-L'ers
I think what Burns asks are some darn good questions for those
concerned about an ananlysis of captialism today.
1. Does cutting the deficit reduce interest rates?
2. Would a reduction in interest rates cause an increase
in investmnet?
I've go to t
I agree that low interest rates in the 1930s "took forever"
(Doug) to work their stimulus. But the 1930s was the Great
Depression (an example of "context") and the mortgage and
consumer credit markets were very undeveloped and Federal
deficits were not really a factor. Apples
At 10:20 AM 1/16/95, Michael Perelman wrote:
>Management, together with government policies, including redistributive tax
>rates, succeeded in increasing profits on a shrinking manufacturing base --
>no mean achievement. Even so, and here is my question, how did real interest
>
rates, succeeded in increasing profits on a shrinking manufacturing base --
no mean achievement. Even so, and here is my question, how did real interest
rates outrun profit so much? Do we explain this just by an excessive
fear of
inflation? Or could we say that they reflect the growing power of
s he's not intimidated because "wages
> do not seem to be accelerating despite scattered reports
> of some skilled-worker shortages, and advances in
> productivity early this year are holding down unit labor
> costs" (quoted in the New York Times, February 23, p. C4).
> So what's determining interest rates?
>
>
s he's not intimidated because "wages
> do not seem to be accelerating despite scattered reports
> of some skilled-worker shortages, and advances in
> productivity early this year are holding down unit labor
> costs" (quoted in the New York Times, February 23, p. C4).
> So what's determining interest rates?
>
>
d reports
of some skilled-worker shortages, and advances in
productivity early this year are holding down unit labor
costs" (quoted in the New York Times, February 23, p. C4).
So what's determining interest rates?
d reports
of some skilled-worker shortages, and advances in
productivity early this year are holding down unit labor
costs" (quoted in the New York Times, February 23, p. C4).
So what's determining interest rates?
On Thu, 24 Feb 1994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am curious, Doug, as to how the low interest policies of the late 1980s and
> 90s protected the coupon clippers. Many of the real "widows and orphans" of
> rentier fame (alleged!) really have been harmed by the lowering of rates ...
Had it not
On Thu, 24 Feb 1994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am curious, Doug, as to how the low interest policies of the late 1980s and
> 90s protected the coupon clippers. Many of the real "widows and orphans" of
> rentier fame (alleged!) really have been harmed by the lowering of rates ...
Had it not
oncepts
> for understanding interest rate determination. Loanable funds
> theory assumes that interest rates equilibrate investments and
> savings. As such, it has nothing to do with Marx and is logically
> inconsistent because of re-switching and reverse capital-deepening.
> And w
oncepts
> for understanding interest rate determination. Loanable funds
> theory assumes that interest rates equilibrate investments and
> savings. As such, it has nothing to do with Marx and is logically
> inconsistent because of re-switching and reverse capital-deepening.
> And w
were
nicknamed Certificates of Confiscation.
Doug
Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Left Business Observer
212-874-4020 (voice)
212-874-3137 (fax)
On Thu, 24 Feb 1994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Jim Devine wrote:
>
> >> Behind this were the limits
> set by class society: inter
were
nicknamed Certificates of Confiscation.
Doug
Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Left Business Observer
212-874-4020 (voice)
212-874-3137 (fax)
On Thu, 24 Feb 1994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Jim Devine wrote:
>
> >> Behind this were the limits
> set by class society: inter
are Pinochet and Thatcher, repressive centralizers both of them.
Doug
Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Left Business Observer
212-874-4020 (voice)
212-874-3137 (fax)
On Thu, 24 Feb 1994, Blair Sandler wrote:
> Interest rates change not only for economic and political (a la M.
> Hen
are Pinochet and Thatcher, repressive centralizers both of them.
Doug
Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Left Business Observer
212-874-4020 (voice)
212-874-3137 (fax)
On Thu, 24 Feb 1994, Blair Sandler wrote:
> Interest rates change not only for economic and political (a la M.
> Hen
In a post dated yesterday, the assertion was made that the political limits of
interest rates (within the "supply-and-demand-for-loanable-capital" rubric)
were that interest could not rise high enough to consume the mass of surplus
value and could not fall below zero.
This is true, of
In a post dated yesterday, the assertion was made that the political limits of
interest rates (within the "supply-and-demand-for-loanable-capital" rubric)
were that interest could not rise high enough to consume the mass of surplus
value and could not fall below zero.
This is true, of
Loanable Funds and rentiers don't strike me as useful concepts
for understanding interest rate determination. Loanable funds
theory assumes that interest rates equilibrate investments and
savings. As such, it has nothing to do with Marx and is logically
inconsistent because of re-switchin
Loanable Funds and rentiers don't strike me as useful concepts
for understanding interest rate determination. Loanable funds
theory assumes that interest rates equilibrate investments and
savings. As such, it has nothing to do with Marx and is logically
inconsistent because of re-switchin
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
