J. M. Keynes Made It Clear in His Correspondence to J. Robinson between September 8th to November 9th, 1936 that She Was Completely Ignorant of His Liquidity Preference Theory of the Rate of Interest: It Is Simply Impossible that Joan Robinson Was “…One of J.m. Keynes’ Most Brilliant Students, Who Helped Him Draft the Original of His General Theory.”

The aggregation of budget constraints of enterprises and households allows us to throw a new light on the controversy between Keynes and Harrod concerning the classical theory of the rate of interest. It appears that the critique of the classical theory that Keynes formulated does not presuppose the liquidity preference theory; it is based on the multiplier theory. We show that this critique is logically founded and that it is based upon the absence of the labor market in the analysis of the interdependence between the markets for financial assets and for goods. Harrod did not comprehend it completely. This explains one lacuna in the model of the General Theory that Harrod proposed in 1937. We show that it lacks an equation and that the equilibrium (hence the rate of interest) is indeterminate, which is not the case in the 1937 article by Hicks. We conclude that if there is relevance in Keynes’s criticism of the classical theory, then a similar criticism can be directed at Keynes’s own theory.

Download Full-text

Interpretation of Chapter 17 of The General Theory and reconciliation between the endogenous money supply and the liquidity preference theory

The Japanese Political Economy ◽

10.1080/2329194x.2021.1984253 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-20

Author(s):

Tosihiro Oka

Keyword(s):

General Theory ◽

Money Supply ◽

Preference Theory ◽

Endogenous Money

Download Full-text

Extreme self-sacrifice beyond fusion: Moral expansiveness and the special case of allyship

Behavioral and Brain Sciences ◽

10.1017/s0140525x18001620 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 41 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Daniel Crimston ◽

Matthew J. Hornsey

Keyword(s):

General Theory ◽

Biological Markers ◽

Natural Environment ◽

Relevant Dimension ◽

Special Case

AbstractAs a general theory of extreme self-sacrifice, Whitehouse's article misses one relevant dimension: people's willingness to fight and die in support of entities not bound by biological markers or ancestral kinship (allyship). We discuss research on moral expansiveness, which highlights individuals’ capacity to self-sacrifice for targets that lie outside traditional in-group markers, including racial out-groups, animals, and the natural environment.

Download Full-text