Beginning, crises, and end of the money economy in three consistent steps

Kakarot-Handtke, Egmont (2011): Beginning, crises, and end of the money economy in three consistent steps.

Abstract

A crisis is but a crisis when the long run outlook is definitively positive. Then a lower turning point must exist. This implicates a vision or, in the ideal case, a formalized theory of the money economy’s possible end states. This theory has to provide an endogenous explanation of end states and crises. The equilibrium approach excludes endogenous causes in principle. Thus disturbances can only be explained by exogenous random shocks. The structural axiomatic approach, that is applied in the following, consistently defines the potential systemic crisis point and the conditions of an economic happy end.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: New framework of conceps; Structure-centric; Axiom set; Zero profit economy; Distributed profit; Systemic crisis point; Logical end states
• Subjects: E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E3 - Prices, Business Fluctuations, and Cycles > E32 - Business Fluctuations ; Cycles; D - Microeconomics > D3 - Distribution > D33 - Factor Income Distribution; E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E2 - Consumption, Saving, Production, Investment, Labor Markets, and Informal Economy > E21 - Consumption ; Saving ; Wealth; E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E4 - Money and Interest Rates > E40 - General; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B4 - Economic Methodology > B41 - Economic Methodology

References

Boland, L. A. (2003). The Foundations of Economic Method. A Popperian Perspective. London, New York, NY: Routledge, 2nd edition.

Chick, V. (1998). On Knowing One’s Place: The Role of Formalism in Economics. The Economic Journal, 108(451): 1859–1869. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/2565849.

Dmitriev, V. (1986). David Ricardos Werttheorie. Versuch einer strengen Analyse. In B. Schefold (Ed.), Ökonomische Klassik im Umbruch, pages 63–136. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Dow, S. C. (2005). Axioms and Babylonian Thought: A Reply. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 27(3): 385–391.

Ellerman, D. P. (1986). Property Appropriation and Economic Theory. In P. Mirowski (Ed.), The Reconstruction of Economic Theory, pages 41–92. Boston, MA, Dordrecht, Lancaster: Kluwer-Nijhoff.

Föllmer, H. (1974). Random Economies with Many Interacting Agents. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 1: 51–62.

Hodgson, G. M. (2001). How Economics Forgot History. The Problem of Historical Specificity in Social Science. London, New York, NY: Routledge.

Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2011). Keynes’s Missing Axioms. SSRN Working Paper Series, pages 1–29. URL http://ssrn.com/abstract=1841408.

Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2011a). The Pure Logic of Value, Profit, Interest. SSRN Working Paper Series, pages 1–21. URL http://ssrn.com/abstract=1838203.

Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2011b). Schumpeter and the Essence of Profit. SSRN Working Paper Series, pages 1–25. URL http://ssrn.com/abstract=1845771.

Knight, F. H. (2006). Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Mineola, NY: Dover. (1921).

Mirowski, P. (1988). Against Mechanism. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.

Schumpeter, J. A. (2008). The Theory of Economic Development. An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. New Brunswick, NJ, London: Transaction Publishers. (1934).

Streissler (1994). The Influence of German and Austrian Economics on Joseph A. Schumpeter. In Y. Shionoya, and M. Perlman (Eds.), Schumpeter in the History of Ideas, pages 13–38. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Veblen, T. (1961). Why is Economics Not an Evolutionary Science? In The Place of Science in Modern Civilisation, pages 56–81. New York, NY: Russel & Russel. (1898).

Wicksell, K. (1936). Interest and Prices. London: Macmillan.