Monthly Archives: April 2011

Musical Interlude

\alpha

Continue reading

Addendum to Pushing on a String

In discussions with the ever thoughtful HBL (which I now think stands for “♥s Bank Liabilities”), he asked where in H.4 data we would see bank bond liabilities increasing in response to an increase in CB bond acquisitions. And the answer is that you may not see it.

Continue reading

Pushing on a String, In Pictures

The other set of fallacies, of which I fear the influence, arises out of a crude economic doctrine commonly known as the Quantity Theory of Money. Rising output and rising incomes will suffer a set-back sooner or later if the quantity of money is rigidly fixed. Some people seem to infer from this that output and income can be raised by increasing the quantity of money. But this is like trying to get fat by buying a larger belt. In the United States to-day your belt is plenty big enough for your belly. It is a most misleading thing to stress the quantity of money, which is only a limiting factor, rather than the volume of expenditure, which is the operative factor.

– J.M. Keyes, Open Letter to President Roosevelt, 1937

Continue reading

A Truly Horrible Translation

Look at what they have done to Vinokurov:

Continue reading

Who doesn’t like

Jacques Tati?

Monetary versus Real, Part 2: Barter as a veil

A friend of mine once lived in a small Swiss village, in which his favorite restaurant closed during dinner time, so that the waiters and chefs could eat.

Continue reading

Non-neutrality

Here is the simplest argument for non-neutrality of money I can think of. It is actually an argument for the non-neutrality of price inflation, but it’s hard to think of changing prices without causing changes in price inflation. One way to do it would be to relabel all prices from the beginning of time until the end of the economic system. That would be a price change that would leave inflation unaffected —  but it would be the only one. Continue reading

Musical Interlude

\alpha

Continue reading

Thinking about Inter-temporal production and the costs of hiring

Suppose that production requires time. The worker hired to produce today will not generate revenue today, but next period and the firm will hire the worker if the present value of his marginal revenue product is larger than his present wage. The rationale is that even though investors are lending the firm capital (or bonds) during the period of production workers are not lending to the firm, but require immediate payment. This distinction becomes relevant when production requires time. But if production was instantaneous, there would be no reason for the firm to borrow from creditors. The fundamental model period should be the time required for production to occur.

Continue reading

Musical Interlude

\alpha

Continue reading