Malthus on Savings

By -
"No political economist of the present day can by saving mean mere hoarding." -- Principles of Political Economy, p. 38

Some commenters have taken me to be endorsing Malthus when I post quotes from him or try to create a model that duplicates what he was thinking: I swear, I am only attempting to understand him at present. Once I do that, I might endorse him or not!

Comments

  1. skylien6:13 AM

    The issue of what really constitutes savings is really a complicated topic with a whole range of different opinions out there. I am sure in it and the lack of a proper definition for it a lot of confusion and bad reasoning is rooted. That definitely is a key issue.

    I think it is at least not uncommon to assume that someone might agree with some quotes if he presents them without any further comment. A disclaimer therefore makes sense.

    However, thanks for providing those quotes!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unknown11:51 PM

    Hoarding is saving when real interest rates are negative.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah12:19 AM

      Not per Malthus it ain't.

      Delete
    2. Unknown4:25 PM

      Which is why Malthus may not be the best economist to go to when searching for insights. And why that quote by Malthus is a pretty bad one.(whether you endorse it or not)

      Economists of his day did not appreciate the interest rate mechanism in the way that we do now and this led Malthus to make mistakes that, today, we would consider to be quite elementary.

      Delete
    3. gcallah11:43 PM

      "Which is why Malthus may not be the best economist to go to when searching for insights."

      Why, because he made a mistake? In the future I will only go to economists who have never made a mistake for my insights.

      "And why that quote by Malthus is a pretty bad one."

      Huh?

      "this led Malthus to make mistakes that, today, we would consider to be quite elementary."

      I would rather *understand* a great thinkers view, and then judge them, rather than judge them first so I can ignore them.

      Delete
  3. Silas Barta2:11 PM

    I just hope your final decision to endorse or not takes note of how cash hoarding provides a "yield" in terms of preserving option value and as an insurance policy against the unexpected (though that's probably the same thing). After all, why not allocate your expenditures the moment you earn the money.

    I know that comment was random, but it's something a lot of economists have to be told, it seems. Not you, but I just wanted to express hope that your evenhandedness prevents you from missing that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. skylien2:25 AM

      Right and the opportunity cost to option value is the real yield/return (+ considered investment risk) they could get if they invest the money into e.g. stocks. People being able on net to move rather in this or that direction is an important market signal, that is needed to clear markets from bubbles and malinvestments imho...

      I think you are right to mention this issue over and over again.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more