The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML

RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Time to cast Keynes adrift > Comments

Time to cast Keynes adrift : Comments

By Richard Laidlaw, published 20/2/2009

The Rudd Government identifies a problem and throws dollars at it while hurling abuse at anyone who presumes to quibble about it.

  1. Pages:
  2. ‹
  3. 1
  4. 2
  5. 3
  6. 4
  7. 5
  8. 6
  9. Page 7
  10. ›
  11. All
Peter Hume, the least you could do is actually UNDERSTAND Steve Keen's views rather than grossly misinterpreting them to the point of obscenity. If you read Keen's reply to your comment and actually read his views on Marxism and Marx's theory of value you would understand that Marx had two theories of value, denoted by his two axioms: the Labour Axioms and the Commodity Axioms. The LTV is derived from the labour axioms and Marx's other theory of value is derived from his commodity axioms. Keen rejects the labour axioms, and accepts the commodity axiom.

"Keen recognises that Marx's theory of value was wrong. So if his theory of value is wrong, what makes anyone think that his theory of money is going to be right? How could it be?"

Clearly from this post you have absolutely no idea about this discrepancy. This in turn makes the rest your drivel irrelevant. Keen is not basing his ideas off a theory of value he has rejected. Why would he?!

On the issue of money supply being either endogenous or exogenous, the empirical evidence to date would suggest that it is created endogenously.
See: Kydland and Prescott, Business Cycles: Real Facts and a Monetary Myth
Setterfield and Basil, Complexity, Endogenous Money and Macroeconomic Theory.

Finally if you want to see Austrian theory refuted on that blog, see the exchange between Keen and Jefferson in the following:
www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/03/05/after-our-economic-dunkirk/

On another note, I would be generally interested in an Austrian analysis of the Australian banking crisis of 1893. From a superficial level it appears as though Australia was largely operating under a free banking system without a central bank and what appears to be minimal government intervention. Does the Austrian analysis of this crisis prove or disprove this to be the case? Please don’t link to a general Austrian theory of credit and money, I want a genuine Austrian analysis of this crisis and its causes.

See: Hickson and Turner. Free Banking gone awry: The Australian banking crisis of 1893.

Regards,
Mark.
Posted by markmmm, Thursday, 12 March 2009 2:48:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. ‹
  3. 1
  4. 2
  5. 3
  6. 4
  7. 5
  8. 6
  9. Page 7
  10. ›
  11. All
About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy