Desai, Milinf (2010): An exploration of money & interest in the theory of value.
Download (1503Kb) | Preview
1. An important conclusion of this work to be noted is it may not necessary to have an explicit relationship between money and prices- like the quantity theory one. What is necessary and important is that there should be a relation between the growth rates of absolute outputs and money. Money affects output and employment. 2. Wages are not assumed to be rigid. The assumption of a perfectly mobile labour (that fits in with the theory with perfect markets) does not fit in with the assumption of rigid wages. Labour is not always a growable stock as well. The economy has to employ the available stock of labour if it were to maintain its growth momentum. Therefore, effective demand has been abandoned in favour of full demand. Given the level of employment, all people should work, “earn” money and hence “determine” output. 3. A one line conclusion that this exploration leads to is this: Output grows, money does not constrain labour (it cannot) and prices do not constrain distribution; in effect, they all determine level of new money, new outputs, new interest, new employment, new prices and new income distribution. Individuals create wealth by being employed and hence contribute to savings, hence to investment and hence to growth. All this happens because they are in constant pursuit of at least maintaining their wealth. They are not the Walrasian wealth maximisers. In fact, individual wealth in a monetary economy is a by-product of national wealth/ income. In a monetary economy, money alone is able to make entrepreneurs produce and workers work. It is an enabler to the entire economic activity. It is like a catalyst in a chemical reaction. 4. In a monetary economy, a valid question is – does the interest rate get a liquidity trap? The answer could be “it may”. But as we have pointed out in the course of analysis, in a monetary economy, liquidity trap may not have harmful prescriptions for the economic activity. The government and the central monetary authority would ensure that in this situation, enough support would be forthcoming such that it would have minimal implications for the economy as a whole. Finally, money is or can never be a veil in a monetary economy. Real balances cannot be an explanation for disequilibrium in a monetary economy. 5. A monetary economy will always face a disequilibrium if let loose. A regulator is required to manage the entire economic activity. Money calls for a truly integrated economic system with individual roles for producers, workers, monetary & fiscal authorities.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||An exploration of money & interest in the theory of value|
|Keywords:||Money; value theory; Sraffa; Patinkin; integration of money and value; classical economics; neo-classical economics;|
|Subjects:||B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B5 - Current Heterodox Approaches > B51 - Socialist; Marxian; Sraffian
E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E5 - Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit
E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E6 - Macroeconomic Policy, Macroeconomic Aspects of Public Finance, Macroeconomic Policy, and General Outlook
|Depositing User:||Milind Desai|
|Date Deposited:||13. Mar 2012 12:58|
|Last Modified:||12. Feb 2013 18:14|
Clower, R W (1965): “The Keynesian Counterrevolution: A theoretical appraisal” in F. H. Hahn and F. Brechling (eds.), The Theory of Interest Rates
-----------------(1967), “A Reconsideration of the micro foundations of monetary theory”, Western Economic Journal, December
G.C. Archibald and R.G. Lipsey (1958): “Monetary and Value Theory: A Critique of Lange and Patinkin”, Review of Economic Studies, Vol. XXVI
Hahn, F.H (1965): “On some problems of proving the existence of an equilibrium in a monetary economy” in F. H. Hahn and F. Brechling (eds.), The Theory of Interest Rates
--------------(1982), “The Neo-Ricardians”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 6, pp. 353-374.
Jean-Michel Grandmont and Yves Younes (1972), “On the Role of Money and the Existence of a Monetary Equilibrium”, Review of Economic Studies
Ostroy, J.M.(1973), “The informational efficiency of monetary exchange”, American Economic Review, Vol 63 (No.4): pp. 597-610
Parchure, R. (2008), “The Sraffa System for Continuous Industrial Production”, GIPE working paper series, November
Samuelson, P. A. (1968), “What Classical and Neo-Classical Monetary Theory Really Was ", Canadian Journal of Economics, (1), pp. 1-15.
Sinha, A. (2001): Reading Sraffa: The Philosophical Underpinnings of Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics WP231
Wray, L.R. (1999), “Theories of Value and Monetary Theories of Production”, WP 261 (Jerome Levy Economics Institute)