The analytical preconditions for Keynes' theory of money

Evaluating Keynes' belief that the "general theory" would create a revolution in economics, depends, in part, on what defines the key elements of the general theory. This paper presents the analytical preconditions for one of these key elements, his liquidity preference theory of money. It is argued here that Keynes's liquidity preference theory of money was both a result of his own intellectual development and a theoretical necessity, given the rest of the theoretical structure of the general theory. Specifically, this paper argues that there were two analytical preconditions for the theory of money contained in the general theory. The first was Keynes' rejection of the quantity theory of money as the basis for conducting monetary policy, a theory he inherited from his English predecessors and he himself had embraced and to which he contributed earlier in his professional career. The second was his rejection of the neoclassical loanable funds theory of interest rate determination. A previous version of this paper was presented at the Forty-Sixth International Atlantic Economic Conference, Boston, MA, October 8–11, 1998.     

The theory of probability: A key element in Keynes' revolution

Keynes believed that the "general theory" would create a revolution in economics. The extent to which his prophesy was realized, in part, depends on the definition of "key elements" in the general theory itself. This paper presents one of the key elements that led Keynes to believe the general theory might indeed create such a revolution. This key element is his theory of probability. Keynes' theory of probability evolved over time and resulted in his employing two distinctly different theories of probability in the general theory—one, implicitly, the other, explicitly. The first was an objective degree of belief theory of probability that was implicitly employed in the general theory. The second was a subjective degree of belief theory of probability that Keynes explicitly developed in the general theory. A previous version of this paper was presented at the Forty-Fourth International Atlantic Economic Society Conference in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, October 9–12, 1997, in the session entitled, "Macroeconomic Theory and Aggregative Models."     

Insights on endogenous money and the liquidity preference theory of interest

It is argued that the debate between “structuralist” and “horizontalist” has long been obscured because of inadequate treatment, in both approaches, of the credit-money supply and of the total money supply. As a result, endogenous money models still have serious limitations today. On the one hand, the bank loan markup and the loan interest rate are exogenous in the horizontalist model, which supposes that they do not depend on the money/liquidity market conditions (as if bank loans did not compete with the existing liquidity). On the other hand, although interest rates are endogenous in the structuralist model, they result from inappropriate treatment of the loan supply and money/liquidity supply. This article aims to remove these shortcomings. It offers a theoretical framework and formal modeling where the creditworthy demand for loans determines the bank loan supply, given the central bank refinancing interest rate, while the total supply and demand for liquidity-money determines the markup and the market rate of interest in accordance with Keynes’s liquidity preference theory. In this framework, the post Keynesian theory of endogenous money and Keynes’s “verticalist” view prove to be analytically complementary.     

Keynes,Ricardo and the classical theory of interest

Keynes made harsh and repeated attacks on the work of Ricardo, blaming him particulary for what Keynes called the ‘classical theory’ of interest. Garegnani and others argue that Keynes' criticisms of the classical theory of interest apply to later neoclassical writers, but not to Ricardo. This paper re-examines Keynes' criticisms. It argues that Keynes attacked Ricardoapos;s theory of interest despite his awareness that Ricardo did not hold the ‘classical theory’. Moreover, Keynes not only expressed sympathy for Ricardo's understanding of interest, but his criticisms which do apply to Ricardo do not address Ricardo's theory of interest.     

Monetary policy on interest rates: a retrospective analysis since Thornton

Abstract

In response to the affirmation by certain authors and critics of a recent return to an interest-rate policy that, in their opinion, resembles a throwback to the nineteenth century theory of monetary policy on interest rates, I pose the question of the difficulties of interest-rate policy in a retrospective analysis beginning with the current that founded the short-term interest rate policy within classical analysis and by focusing my discussion on several key authors (Thornton, Banking School, Bagehot, Wicksell, Keynes, contemporary authors such as Woodford). To this end, I study the importance that the interbank money market plays for these authors, which determines the target rate for the central bank.     

Some Misunderstood Aspects of the Final Chapter of Keynes’s General Theory

ABSTRACT

Some seriously misunderstood issues arise in three paragraphs in the last chapter of Keynes’s General Theory concerning the relationship between his theory and orthodox theory. That these passages permit a form of theoretical reconciliation is a view shared by prominent commentators of opposing persuasions. Joan Robinson and John Eatwell strongly criticised Keynes for inconsistency and for opening the door to neoclassical elements that undermine his theorising, while Paul Samuelson made Keynes’s comments the foundation of his textbook neoclassical synthesis. The reconciliation view, however, is based on hasty non-contextual readings and is mistaken. More careful analysis leads to three conclusions: neither internal inconsistency nor neoclassical appeasement exists; Keynes’s paragraphs are aligned with the theoretical positions previously advanced in the General Theory; and what is actually deployed is a complementarity view relating his macro-theory to one particular part of orthodox micro-theory. Rejecting the dominant view, however, does not remove the issue of the absence in Keynes’s work of an adequately exposited micro-theory to accompany his macro-theory.     

The money demand function in a small,open and quasi-monetary economy: the Gambia

The open-economy money demand asserts that for its underlying theory to hold, the variables ought to be co-integrated. Co-integrated variables although nonstationary in level, can share a long-term trend that is indeed stationary. However, the open money demand model has mainly been tested in developed and developing nations. This article investigates the co-integrated open-economy money demand in the Gambia where the macro economy is a quasi-monetary system, small (relative to the world market), but very open with a floating exchange rate regime. In the co-integrated space, the Gambian money demand appears to be quite responsive to domestic income, a measure of interest rate and the real exchange rate fluctuations.     

不同货币理论:诸利率学派分歧之源浅探

不同学派利率理论问题的分歧，根源于其所依据的货币理论的不同。“古典”学派的实物利率理论源于其“两分法”货币理论；凯恩斯的纯货币利率理论源于其缺乏微观基础的货币经济理论；马克思以其科学的货币理论为依据，给予其资本利率理论以深刻的内涵。     

Permanent On-The-Spot Job Creation—The Missing Keynes Plan for Full Employment and Economic Transformation

The paper rejects the conventional view that Keynes had an aggregate demand approach to full employment. Instead, it proposes that he advocated a very specific labor demand targeting approach that would be implemented both in recessions and expansions. Modern policies, which aim to “close the demand gap” between current and potential output are inconsistent with Keynes's work on theoretical and methodological grounds. There is considerable evidence to suggest that a permanent program for direct or (in his words) “on-the-spot” job creation is the missing Keynes Plan for full employment and economic transformation. The current crisis presents the social economist with a unique opportunity to set fiscal policy straight along the original Keynesian lines. The paper suggests what specific form such a policy might take.     

Is ex‐ante ex‐post analysis irrelevant to Keynes's theory of employment?

Ex‐ante ex‐post analysis has become a standard tool in macroeconomics. Yet Keynes dismissed it. We argue that Keynes's dismissal of ex‐ante ex‐post analysis is not an oddity but an indication of the originality of his theory of employment compared to standard macroeconomics. First, the principle of effective demand does not amount to a process that determines employment and income at the point of intersection of the traditionally defined ex ante supply and demand functions. Second, the finance motive allowed Keynes to confirm the identity of aggregate supply and demand already asserted in The General Theory. This latter conclusion is puzzling, however, since the principle of effective demand presupposes the possibility of a discrepancy between supply and demand. We suggest that Keynes's theory of employment is linked to a theory of income distribution whereby profits are a redistributed share of factor income which is transferred to firms when prices exceed factor costs. The identity and the equilibrium condition then relate to separate measurements of income and output, factor cost and prices.     

The logic of Keynes' criticism of the Classical model

The Classics' remedy for unemployment was to lower money wages. Keynes opposes this remedy. Therefore, in The General Theory, he aims at building a model in which a fall in money wages may not cause an increase in employment. Most of the interpretations of Keynes identified this aim, but did not attach enough importance to it. Reading The General Theory in the light of this aim, we discover what Keynes' logic of elaboration is, then what Keynes' ideas about voluntary or involuntary unemployment are.     

Does money have a role in the inflation process? Evidence from Australia

Inflation, defined as a sustained increase in the price level, is considered a monetary phenomenon, as it can be explained within the framework of money‐demand and money‐supply relationships. In the extant literature, money growth is shown to remain causally related to inflation across countries and over time, irrespective of the exchange rate regime and stability of the money‐demand function. Nevertheless, emerging literature suggests a diminishing role of money in the conduct of monetary policy for price stability, especially under inflation targeting. Monetary policy in Australia under inflation targeting since 1993 is an example of policy that denies a relationship between money growth and inflation. The proposition that money does not matter insofar as inflation is concerned seems odd in both theory and the best‐practice monetary policy for price stability. This paper uses annual data for the period 1970–2017 and quarterly data for the period 1970Q1–2015Q1. It deploys both the Johansen cointegration approach and the autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) cointegration approach to investigate for Australia whether money, real output, prices and the exchange rate (non‐stationary variables) maintain the long‐run price‐level relationship that the classical monetary theory suggests in the presence of such stationary variables as the domestic and foreign interest rates. As expected, the empirical findings for Australia are consistent with the classical long‐run price‐level relationship between money, real output, prices and the exchange rate. The error‐correction model of inflation confirms the presence of a cointegral relationship among these variables; it also provides strong evidence of a short‐run causal relationship between money supply growth and inflation. On the basis of a priori theoretical predictions and empirical findings, the paper draws the conclusion that the monetary aggregate and its growth rate matter insofar as inflation is concerned, irrespective of the strategy of monetary policy for price stability.     

The Propagation of Keynesian Thinking in Australia: E. R. Walker 1933-36*

Walker attended Cambridge in the early 1930s when Keynes was moving toward an expenditure-oriented explanation of output and employment but had yet to break through to his theory of effective demand. In conveying this thinking to an Australian audience through 1933-35, and in setting up as a Keynesian critic of depression policy, Walker raised the level of local discourse upon the unemployment problem. In 1936, too, he was quick to novelty in the General Theory; but now others were to carry forward the intellectual revolution that was consummated in war and post-war planning.     

George Shackle and uncertainty: a revolution still awaited

It is argued that Keynes consciously sought incomes policy, first, in 1925, and, secondly, during the second world war. The first occasion concerned the need to keep costs down in the wake of the revaluation of sterling. The second instance concerned the difficulties of financing the war effort that would arise from a chronic excess demand for labour leading to greatly increased wages. Keynes came to recognize that cost push wage inflation was a serious potential threat to the maintenance of full employment. However despite his specific proposals then it is uncertain what he would have advocated for contemporary circumstances, as he increasingly came to view this as a ‘political’ rather than an ‘economic’ problem.     

On the monetary nature of the interest rate in a Keynes–Schumpeter perspective

Abstract

Keynes, in the General Theory, explains the monetary nature of the interest rate by means of the liquidity preference theory. The objective of this article is twofold. The first objective is to point out the limits of the liquidity preference theory. The fundamental limitation of this theory is that it does not allow to realize the intent declared by Keynes in 1933 to elaborate a monetary theory of production The second objective is to present a more solid theory of the monetary nature of the interest rate. It will be shown that an essential element of this explanation is Schumpeter’s analysis of the role of bank money in a capitalist economy. In fact, this analysis represents a fundamental tool to explain the characteristics that, according to Keynes, distinguish a monetary economy from a real-exchange economy     

The characteristics of a monetary economy: a Keynes-Schumpeter approach

Mainstream monetary theory considers money only as an instrumentmeant to facilitate trading without having any effect on incomeor on the evolution of the economic system. The aim of thispaper is to elaborate a monetary theory capable of supportingthe thesis of money non-neutrality based on the arguments developedby Keynes and Schumpeter. The synthesis of the theories of thesetwo great economists will be formulated starting from the twopoints which are common in the views of Keynes and Schumpeter.First, in contrast with mainstream theory, Keynes and Schumpeterstate that the diffusion of a fiat money induces a radical modificationinto the way in which the economic system works. Second, whenKeynes and Schumpeter describe the reasons why money and financialaggregates are not neutral, they highlight the fundamental roleof the credit market and of banks; in contrast with the mainstreamtheory, they do not consider the credit market as the mirrorimage of the goods market.     

Keynes against Kalecki on economic method

In the past twenty years, there has been considerable debate on the “coherence” of post Keynesian economics, in view of post Keynesian economists’ ambitions to develop a paradigmatic alternative to neoclassical economics. Given the growing importance of methodological aspects in this discussion, this article addresses the differences of approach to economic theory between the fathers of the two most important strands in post Keynesian economics. We thus focus on Keynes’s criticism of Kalecki’s theory of the business cycle and the tensions between Keynes’s logical approach and Kaleki’s formal modeling. We show that in criticizing Kalecki’s theory, Keynes made use of the same methodological criticism (based on detecting logical fallacies in reasoning) he had employed to attack both the classical theory and contemporary “pseudo-mathematical” models. After illustrating these fundamental differences between Keynes and Kalecki about the proper way of doing economics, we draw some conclusions on the possible future evolution of post Keynesian economics.     

宏观经济计量模型体系的实证分析及应用

以凯恩斯主义经济理论为指导,传统的IS-LM理论为框架,建立小规模的中国宏观经济联立方程模型,并在生产函数中引入人力资源因素,可称为"具有价格调整机制的凯恩斯模型”。该模型对短期预测和中长期分析具有一定的积极作用。模型由商品市场和货币市场以及劳动力市场构成,体现了供给与需求双导向原则。     

后凯恩斯主义经济学的货币非中性理论

后凯恩斯主义经济学的突出贡献是将凯恩斯关于不确定性和货币非中性思想发展为一个完整的关于货币非中性的理论框架,它强调无论是长期还是短期,货币都是影响真实部门的一个重要因素。后凯恩斯主义的货币理论在凯恩斯的灵活偏好理论中加入融资性需求,这样就必然导致存量和流量的矛盾,从而造成利息率的不确定性和波动性;从不同角度分析了货币的创造过程,提出了内生货币供给理论。这一理论完全是与主流经济学所信奉的货币数量论对立的,从而拒绝资本主义经济自然趋于长期充分就业均衡的概念。