A Notable Economist Who Recognized the Importance of Cantillon Effects

By -
His name started with "John Maynard," and ended with "Keynes":

"The basic contention [in the Treatise] is that a monetary injection (for example) will not impinge with the same force on all markets and all prices." -- Axel Leijonhuvud, On Keynesian Economics and the Economics of Keynes, p. 23

Comments

  1. rob10:18 AM

    Does Leijonhuvud say whether he had unrecognized it by the time he wrote TGT ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah1:17 PM

      Yes, he notes very emphatically that TGT presumes the analysis present in The Treatise. Keynes was a Wicksellian, and a monetary economist in the classical tradition, with one difference. Anyone care to guess what that is?

      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