Comparing Paradigms on a Level Playing Field
Karl Betz
Hochschulschriften . Standort Meschede . Nr. 5 /2015
Herausgeber
Der Rektor der Fachhochschule Südwestfalen, Professor Dr. Claus Schuster
Fachhochschule Südwestfalen Baarstraße 6
58636 Iserlohn www.fh-swf.de Layout
Dezernat 5: Hochschulkommunikation TextKarl Betz
Bildnachweis Titelseite: Hebi B.
Druck
WIRmachenDRUCK GmbH Mühlbachstr. 7
71522 Backnang
ISBN (print): 978-3-940956-46-0 ISBN (elektr.): 978-3-940956-47-7 www.fh-swf.de/cms/hochschulschriften Meschede 2015
Karl Betz
1Summary: There are different economic paradigms with very different views of the functioning of the economic process.
I argue that it is important to demonstrate the different foundations of these paradigms in an introductory course. This should be done within the same framework so that it becomes obvious, which differences are due to the perspective of the paradigm and not just to different ways of modelling.
In my one semester introduction to economics, I discuss price theory in a simple (one good) production price model while for income and employment the three approaches are compared using the production function which connects the labour market and the goods market of the income expenditure model.
Zusammenfassung: Eine bloße Öffnung der ökonomischen Theorie für Fragestellungen und Ergebnisse anderer Disziplinen ist für eine plurale Ökonomik nicht hinreichend, weil es „die“ Ökonomische Theorie nicht gibt, sondern konkurrierende Ansätze, Paradigmen, die empirische Phänomene unterschiedlich wahrnehmen. Zentral ist daher ein Vergleich der unterschiedlichen Theorien und deren Sichtweisen.
Vorgeschlagen wird ein Einführungskurs, der die drei großen Paradigmen in jeweils dem gleichen Modellrahmen vergleicht, einem einfachen Produktionspreismodell für die Preistheorie und einem drei- Felder-Diagramm, das Einkommen-Ausgaben-Modell und Arbeits- markt über die Produktionsfunktion integriert.
Subject(s): Classical Economics, Neoclassical Economics Keynesian Economics; Economics 101
JEL: A22; B00
Hochschulschriften Standort Meschede 5/2015
1 Karl Betz is a lecturer at the FH SWF. Contact: Karl.Betz@gmx.de
Price Theory ... 2
Long run equilibrium ... 2
Comparative Statics ... 5
Income and Employment (and Money) ... 8
Money ... 9
Income and Employment ... 10
Comparative Statics ... 15
Conclusion ... 18
References ... 20
Graphs and Tables
Graph 1: Closing the Degree of Freedom of the fpf ... 4Graph 2: Technological Progress ... 6
Graph 3: Classical Macroeconomics ... 11
Graph 4: Neoclassical Macroeconomics ... 12
Graph 5: Keynesian Macroeconomics ... 14
Table 1: Synopsis (Price Theory) ... 5
Table 2: Synopsis (Comparative Statics) ... 8
Table 3 Synopsis (Income and Employment) ... 15
Table 4: Synopsis (Comparative Statics Macro) ... 16
Karl Betz
It is not enough to open up economics to other disciplines of social sciences – the reason being, that there is not just one economic science, but there are different paradigms – classical, neoclassical and Keynesian - with very different views of the functioning of the economic process. So if you bring together neoclassical economics and sociology, chances are, that you won't end up with a better economic theory, but with a neoclassical brand of sociology.
Different paradigms imply different perceptions of the same phenomena. Coming form a neoclassical perspective you are forced to interpret unemployment as voluntary and the unemployed turn from victims to culprits of unemployment. This leads to quotations such as
„Where is fairness for the shift worker, leaving home in the dark hours of the early morning, who looks up at the closed blinds of their next door neighbour sleeping off a life of benefits.“ George Osborne 2012 (Economist 7.11.15 S. 30) or to EU estimates such as a NAIRU-rate (i.e. full-employment) of 20% for Spain (Gechert et alt. (2015)).
As adherents to different paradigms experience different phenome- na differently (paradigms are world views after all, so small wonder that proponents of different approaches see different “worlds” i.e.
realities), different paradigms provide different explanations – its is your experience after all, which the theory [(a) forms and (b)] is called upon to explain.
I therefore argue, that it is important to demonstrate the different foundations of these paradigms in an introductory course. This should be done within the same framework so that it becomes obvious, which differences are due to the perspective of the paradigm and not just to different ways of modelling.
I further more argue, that this can be done in an introductory course and to prove that, in what follows I give a short outline my of one semester introduction to economics.
I discuss the three approaches (classical, neoclassical and Keynesian theory) in two frameworks
(a) For price theory I use a simple (one good) production price model and the factor price frontier (fpf).
(b) Income and Employment: The three approaches are compared using the production function which connects the labour market and the goods market of the income expenditure model.
In both contexts we discuss the difference in the three approaches, the differing equilibria and the differences in the comparative static results.
At the start of the course the market diagram is presented – not because the critique of it is not valid (see Keen (2011)) but just to make the students familiar with the concepts of excess supply and demand and the directions of price reaction.
Price Theory
In his 1982 essay “The neo-Ricardians” Hahn rebukes the Sraffian critique of the neo-classical model by showing, that the production price model is a special case of a price system, in which supply has adjusted to demand, so that the vectors relative prices of different periods are unchanged. (p. 359, 364). His reasoning however identifies the production price model as a viable model for a long term neoclassical price system (balanced growth). So the production price system can safely be put to use to compare the properties of (long term) classical, neoclassical, and Keynesian price theory.
I note in passing, that this framework might allow to replace the assumption of price takers by the assumption of capital competition.
Long run equilibrium
To compare the difference in price theory, the most simple version of a production price model, a one good economy is sufficient. A single output good is produced with a units of the same good and l units of labour as inputs. Let p denote the price of the good, w the (nominal) wage rate and r the rate of profit (or 1 + r the rate of return). Then the price system is given with
a · (1 + r) · p + l · w = p <==> p= [1−a(1+r)]−1⋅l⋅w
given the technology, the input coefficients a and l are known. This leaves us with three unknowns (p, r and w) and one equation. One unknown can be eliminated by the choice of the numeraire, f. i. use w, the wage unit, as numeraire. Then we need to know just the rate of profit r or the real wage rate w/p to determine p.2
But these depend on each other, as expressed in the factor price frontier (fpf): Dividing the production price system by p yields:
a · (1 + r) + l · w/p = 1
So the whole price system is solved if either the real wage rate or the rate of profit is explained.
And this observation allows to explain the basic difference between the price theory of the three paradigms.
Classical Economics. Labour is just some other reproducible commodity. So its price is determined by its costs of reproduction – the amount of goods and labour needed to (re)produce one unit of labour.
Let these coefficients be denoted by the index l. Then al · p+ ll · w = w
is the additional equation which determines w/p (Labour is not produced by capitalists, so the rate of profit is zero). At this wage rate the supply of labour is perfectly elastic – just as is the supply of any other commodity at its (re)production price.3
This reasoning is illustrated by the dashed line in graph 1: Given the input-coefficients and w/p the rate of profit (and the complete vector of relative prices) is determined.
2 At this point it is advisable to remark that the same would hold true in a more realistic model with zounds of commodities, where a would become A the (zounds x zounds) matrice of input-coefficients, while l and p turn into l and p the vector of labour inputs and prices respectively. Still: To determine the zounds of relative prices only r and w/p would be missing.
Further complications, such as non-basics and joint-production should be mentioned, but are relegated to a more specialised course.
3 Many classical economists sought ways to increase the reproduction price of labour. Malthus for instance suggested to allow weddings only at some threshold level of income. The ban on child labour and / or female labour may also be understood in this context.
Graph 1: Closing the Degree of Freedom of the fpf
Keynes. The rate of interest is determined in the credit and asset markets. The rate of profit in turn is determined by the rate of interest.
“Capital ... is kept scarce because of the competition of the rate of interest on money.” (Keynes (1936), chapter 16). What emerges is the real wage rate (and the complete vector of relative prices).4 (See dotted lines in graph 1.)
The neoclassical solution. Consider the maximum rate of return.
Here the demand for labour will be high, while the supply of labour will be zero, as the real wage rate is zero. So at this point we find an 4 For this approach to work, obviously the real interest rate has to be determined, so some modification of Keynes' version of liquidity preference theory is required.
excess demand for labour which will induce (real) wages to be bid up with the rate of profit decreasing. At the other extreme when the rate of return is zero the real wage rate reaches its maximum. Here at least some amount of labour services will be offered, while the demand will be zero. Hence there will be an excess supply, real wages will fall and the rate of return will increase. Now suppose that the excess demand function for labour decreases monotonously. Then there must be one combination (r*; (w/p)*) at which the labour market clears, so that there is no further tendency for the factor prices to change. (See solid lines in graph 1.)
So r* and (w/p)* are determined by the equilibrium of the factor markets. (As a further unknown (employment) is derived the system has one additional degree of freedom, so it is not overdetermined.) This reasoning also implies, that neoclassical price theory requires the assumption of (the necessary conditions for the market process to lead to) full-employment.
Table 1 Synopsis (Price Theory)
Given Determined
Classical Economics Reproduction wage Rate of profit Neoclassical Economics Factor supply r*, (w/p)*, L*
Keynesian Economics Rate of profit Wage rate
Comparative Statics
The fpf can further more be used to do comparative statics. One obvious application is the analysis of changes in factor prices. This however is straight forward, so that in this section only three less obvious applications are explored: Technologial progress, taxes and environmental policy.
If there are more than one techniques, than each of these has its own fpf and the fpf of the society is the envelope of the individual
fpfs.5 (The fpf in graph 2 therefore is not drawn as a straight line.) Comparative statics can discuss, which consequence changes in the envelope of the fpfs imply for factor prices.
Technological progress implies, that some new fpf emerges, which, at least in part, runs above the old enveloping curve (grey curve in graph 2). Suppose the economy starts in point A.
Graph 2: Technological Progress
With the introduction of a new technology a part of the original enveloping curve becomes obsolete, as superior factor-price combinations become feasible (solid black line).
5 Again, topics such as reswitching may be mentioned, but are relegated to more specialised courses.
Classical economics: As the real wage rate is given, an outward shift of the fpf will raise the rate of profit (Marx' production of relative surplus value). The new factor prices are found at point C (dashed lines).
Neoclassical economics: The new factor price combination will lie on the new fpf in the triangle above the former equilibrium point. Both the wage rate and the rate of profit will rise – although without additional information about LS and LD the exact extend of these changes can't be decided (solid arrow; N).
Keynesian economics: As r is given, the real wage rate will rise (dotted lines) and the system will end up in point K.
Tax incidence. Taxes imply that a part of the output accrues to the state and therefore is no longer available for factor remuneration. This can be represented by an inward shift of the fpf. I mention in passing, that the fpf shifts the focus of attention to the consequences for income distribution while the discussion in the market diagram focuses attention to the relative incidence for sellers and buyers. The former is more meaningful than the latter, since everyone has to sell in order to be able to buy, while you don't need to be a capitalist in order to sell your labour services. (And in general you are not, as the net assets of the lower two quintiles of the wealth distribution are negligible to negative in most capitalist societies. (Piketty (2014, ch. 10; OECD (2015) #).6)
Classical economics: Never mind which form of taxation is implemented, taxes are paid out of profits. (This of course changes, when rents enter the model.)
Neoclassical economics: The new factor price combination will lie in the triangle below the former equilibrium point. Both the wage rate and the rate profit will be affected.
6 Atkinson points out that it is important to distinguish wealth and capital.
Most of the wealth of the lower percentiles consists of housing wealth – which does not affect factor income distribution. „... much of the wealth that people own conveys little or no control over the productive activities of the economy beyond their own front door. ... It is capital that is relevant, when we consider the macroeconomic distribution of income.“
(Atkinson (2015), p. 95) This goes along with Marx' distinction between property and private property, the latter being characterized by its functioning socially.
Keynesian economics: As r is given, only the real wage rate will be affected. The tax burden is borne by workers.
Environment. Both pollution and abatement have the same consequence: Some formerly feasible technique will no longer be available. Be it, that pollution requires a switch in technique (f.i.
because more effort has to be put in the treatment of polluted water) or be it, that a formerly chosen technique is outlawed because of the danger it poses to the environment. Thus, again, the factor price frontier shifts inward. All three paradigms predict, that factor prices will be affected, although, again, the incidence differs.
Classical economics: As wages are given, the burden is borne by the rate of profit.
Neoclassical economics: The new factor price combination will lie somewhere below the former equilibrium point. Again both the wage rate and the rate profit will be affected.
Keynesian economics: As r is given, only the real wage rate will eventually be affected.
Table 2 Synopsis (Comparative Statics) Technological
Progress
Tax incidence Environment affects
Classical Economics
rate of profit rate of profit rate of profit Neoclassical
Economics both both both
Keynesian Economics
wage rate wage rate wage rate
Income and Employment (and Money)
The market for goods and services and the factor markets (represented by the labour market) are linked by the production function. The market for goods and services is modelled along the lines
of the income-expenditure model with demand on the vertical and the supply of goods and services (which by definition is equal to income Y) on the horizontal axis. For the market to be in equilibrium, (aggregate) supply has to be equal to (aggregate) demand. The 45° line therefore is not some sort of aggregate supply function, but an equilibrium condition.
As lined out in Keynes' Treatise (Keynes (1930) chapters 9 - 12) at any point above the 45°-degree-curve demand outstrips supply, so that entrepreneurs will earn unplanned profits, which will induce them to expand supply (widow's cruse). Below the 45°-line the reverse will be true (barrel of danaides).
Money
Basic to Keynes' reasoning is, that demand depends on income and that people may plan to spend less than their income at full employment, so that, at full employment demand may fall short of supply and income has to contract in order to reach an equilibrium of supply and demand.
The answer of supply side economists to this is, that either (classical economics: Says' law) people will always plan to spend all of their earnings: No one offers goods or services, if not to purchase something in return. (Say (1815) Chapitre 15). Or that relative prices will eventually equate supply and demand plans.
While Says' argument is a behavioural assumption, which may or may not be correct,7 both price-mechanisms, which neoclassical theory has to offer, are flawed.
Money is created by the extension of credit: Banks create credit and deposits at the same time, when they write a credit contract and central bank money is created, when banks refinance themselves at the discount window of the central bank.
So neither is money net wealth, nor is the quantity of money given exogenously. These properties of money render obsolete both the Pigou-effect and the “Keynes-effect”.
7 And there is a good chance for it to prove wrong: As the individual budget constraints imply that no one can plan to spend more than she earns, even a single agent who doesn't behave according to Says' assumption will negate Says' law.
The Pigou-effect is obsolete, because (net) real money balances don't change, when the price level changes (as zero divided by any number remains zero). And the “Keynes-effect” does not work, because in comparative statics the nominal volume of credit (and therefore: money) will be lower, if prices are lower (and the nominal value of the purchases to be financed with credit is lower) – so money will contract along with prices. And in dynamics falling prices induce losses which have to be refinanced, so that credit demand expands and the rate of interest won't fall. For this again see the Treatise (Keynes 1930).
So, in a nutshell: If demand depends on (effective) income and not just on relative prices, then there is no market mechanism, which will ensure that flexible prices will eventually draw the economy towards full-employment.8
Income and Employment
Classical economics. Labour supply is infinitely elastic at the reproduction wage. This determines the wage rate, the rate of profit and the technology described by the input-coefficients (a, l).
The capital stock Kt at the beginning of the period is given, being the result of past accumulation. Employment therefore is
L* = (l/a) · Kt.
Income is determined as employment times labour productivity, Y* = (1/l) · L*
(or Kt times capital productivity), while aggregate demand, thanks to Says' law, will always be equal to aggregate supply (i.e. income).
(See graph 3.)
8 While Clowers' distinction between notional and effective plans is extremely helpful (Clower (1963)), the new macroeconomics ended up in a full employment equilibrium, because here too exogenous outside money was assumed.
Graph 3: Classical Macroeconomics
Neoclassical economics (Graph 4). Both labour supply and demand are elastic in the real wage rate. (Labour demand is a function of the real wage, because the rate of profit is a function of the real wage and therefore savings respond to changes in the real wage rate.) The factor markets thus decide on employment, the wage rate, and the rate of profit.
Graph 4: Neoclassical Macroeconomics
Given full-employment, the production function determines the level of output (Y). As in classical economics notional supply equals notional demand.
I assume, that both the labour supply curve are well behaved – even if this cannot be taken for granted – because I wish to stress the different logic of the underlying market model instead of discussing different assumptions about the properties of preference functions (which would remain in the same market framework).
As changes in the real wage rate might induce a change in the chosen technique, input-coefficients might change if labour supply or demand changes. So in the neoclassical case the production function may not be a straight line – but this is easier to draw and its slope is of no consequence to the arguments made here (as long as it is upward sloping)
Keynes. The two features of the Keynesian model are effective demand (which depends on income and which, at full employment, may well fall short of supply) and the determination of the real rate of interest on the credit and asset markets.
As the economy usually will not end up on the labour supply curve its progression is not crucial to the argument – it is only referred to, to determine the level of unemployment in equilibrium. For convenience sake I retain the neoclassical version, but any other supply function would do as well.
The real rate of interest determines the real wage rate and it simultaneously influences effective demand.9 Supply adjusts to effective demand, so that employment is determined as L* = Y* · l and the equilibrium capital stock is K* = Y* · a. the limiting factor here is effective demand which rations the use of inputs. As capital goods which are not needed will not be produced, there is no unemployed capital,10 while people are too stubborn to cease to exist, when their services are not in demand, so that the equilibrium level of unemployment is given by
U = LS(w/P) – Y* · l
As discouraged workers may withdraw form the labour market, it is preferable to measure unemployment using the participation rate – say as the ratio of labour volume to the adult population times the normal working hours.
Please note that, while the level of wages is determined, the wage structure is not: While classical economists can explain different wages by differences in reproduction costs and neoclassical economists can 9 This can be more elegantly discussed in an extended IS-MP-framework.
(See Betz 2015) But I usually don't manage to cramp this in a one semester course. So I don't deal with it here.
10 Therefore it is not convincing to measure the „output gap“ by the degree of capital utilisation.
explain it by the market clearing wages of heterogeneous labour services, here not all (possibly none) labour markets are cleared, so that there is lots of room for wage discrimination and sociological factors will have to be evoked to explain the wage structure.
Graph 5: Keynesian Macroeconomics
Nevertheless the profit maximizing condition of nominal wage rate equal to value of marginal product will still hold: As the wage structure influences relative prices and thereby (a) the choice of technology and
(b) the output price the value of the marginal product will adjust to the nominal wage.
Table 3 Synopsis (Income and Employment) Limiting factor Employment Classical
Economics
capital stock full-employment income (labour adjusts)
Neoclassical
Economics labour supply curve
capital supply curve full-employment income Keynesian
Economics
effective demand unemployment capital stock adjusts
Comparative Statics
To compare the properties of the three models the effect of two shocks are briefly discussed: technical progress and social policy.
Technical progress implies, that the production function becomes steeper and that the fpf shifts outward as already discussed above.
Classical economics. Output increases and, as already mentioned, the rate of profit will increase. The impact on deployment however depends on the type of technological change. As L = (l/a) · K, employment will increase if technical progress is capital saving while it will decrease, if it is labour saving. Ricardo therefore admitted, that technological change may hurt the workers in the short run, as some of the formerly employed may become abundant. (Ricardo (1817), chapter 31. On Machinery.)
Neoclassical economics: As the marginal product of labour increases, labour demand will increase. So output, employment, and the real wage rate will go up.
Keynesian economics. As long as technical progress doesn't affect demand (which it might, in case of product innovation or if it affects depreciation) the steeper production function implies a reduction of employment while real wages will increase.
Social policy implies a redistribution of income.
In classical economics this is discussed under the heading of poor laws. Classical economists were sceptical about those, because they basically meant, that the state provided a subsistence wage, i.e. it demanded people, who's labour services were not needed – or, given the horizontal labour supply curve, the poor laws implied the production of unemployed. So social policy leads to the creation of unemployment – and it usually was recommended that these redundant workers should be kept in conditions, under which they could not procreate (workhouses). There however is no effect on real wages, employment, and income (at least as long as this policy is paid for with taxes on rent).
Table 4 Synopsis (Comparative Statics Macro)
Output Employment Factor income
Technological Progress Classical
Economics
increases depends on type rate of profit Neoclassical
Economics
increases increases r and w/p
Keynesian Economics
unaffected reduced wage rate
Social policy Classical
Economics
unaffected unaffected (but unemployment increases)
r reduced
Neoclassical Economics
decreases decreases r and w/p
Keynesian Economics
increases increases w/p
Neoclassical economics. The labour supply curve shifts inwards, as (a) the opportunity cost of employment is raised and (b) the net real wage is reduced, as a part of the taxes need to finance social policy is borne by labour. In consequence income and employment is reduced,
the gross real wage increases, while the net real wage decreases. The rate of profit decreases.
Keynesian economics. Social policy implies a redistribution of income from higher to lower wages. (Again: As r is given, taxes are born by wages.) As the marginal rate of consumption is higher for lower income groups, marginal rate of consumption increases for the economy as a whole, so that the demand curve becomes steeper.
Output and employment therefore will increase, the real wage rate will decrease, and (involuntary) unemployment will be reduced because of (a) increased labour demand and – if one accepts the assumptions of the standard labour supply curve (b) because a part of hitherto involuntary unemployment becomes voluntary.
Conclusion
What becomes evident is, that the differences between classical, neoclassical and Keynesian economics are not due to different ways of formalisation. They yield different results and explanations within the same framework, because they differ in their views about what basically constitutes economic relations.
For classical economists the point of departure is production and reproduction: „In der gesellschaftlichen Produktion ihres Lebens gehen die Menschen bestimmte notwendige von ihrem Willen unabhängige Verhältnisse ein, ... Die Gesamtheit dieser Produktionsverhältnisse bildet die ökonomische Struktur der Gesellschaft.” (Marx 1859, p. 8) Thus they treat labour services as a (re)producible input whose value is determined like the value of any other reproducible commodity – the reproduction costs of labour services determine their equilibrium price to quote Marx again: den “Wert der Ware Arbeitskraft”.
The neoclassical theory conceptualises economic interaction as exchange of an endowment of scarce goods.
“L'échange de deux marchandises entre elles sur un marché régi par la libre concurrence ... L'objet principal de la théorie de la production de la richesse social est d'en tirer les conséquences en montrant comment s'en déduit la règle d'organisation dé l'industrie agricole, manufacturière et commerciale. Aussi peut-on dire qu'elle contient toute l'économie politique pure et appliquée.” (Walras (187), § 99)
For these to have a price they have to be scarce which implies that
“(i)n a neoclassical equilibrium all inputs are used and must be paid their marginal products.” (Hahn 1982 p. 370) So full-employment is the consequence of modelling economic interaction as exchange.
Keynes finally envisaged a monetary production economy (Keynes (1933)) in which production requires the advance of money. As the advance of money has a price – the rate of interest – this establishes a price system. And as money is advanced in the expectation of recouping these advances (with a profit). And therefore money and employment are restricted by the preparedness of the public to return their factor-income in exchange for goods and services – by aggregate demand for short.
It it may be tempting to conclude that these three perspectives supplement each other as economic interaction in a capitalist economy involves production, exchange and money. But that would be wrong.
Instead, all three paradigms treat all three aspects. They just prescribe in which manner to analyse them.
The classical economist talks about exchange as a production process, because the physical (location) or temporal (storage) properties of a product are transformed (Marx). And she treats money as a produced good (gold).
The neoclassical economist models production as an exchange (of factor inputs for output goods) and (tries to) conceptualise money as a scarce good (Quantity Theory of Money).
And the Keynesian economist will stress, that both exchange and production require an outlay of money and therefore can be conceptualized as advances or as spending decisions.
These three different perspectives lead to extremely different properties of the economic systems they describe, to totally different interpretations of economic phenomena, and to totally different expectations of the consequences of different policies.
References
Atkinson, Anthony B. (2015) Inequality. What can be done? Harvard University Press Cambridge and London
Betz, Karl (2014) VWL. Eine kritische Einführung. Manuskript.
Meschede.
Betz, Karl (2015) The IS-MP-model and the difference between neoclassical and Keynesian economics. Hochschulschriften Standort Meschede 2/2015.
Clower, Robert (1963) The Keynesian Counter-Revolution: A
Theoretical Appraisal. In: Hahn, F.H. / Brechling, F.P.R. ed., The Theory of Interest Rates. Macmillan. 1965
Gechert, Sebastian / Rietzler, Katja / Tober, Silke (2015) The European Commission’s New NAIRU: Does it Deliver? IMK Working Paper 142 (12 / 2014)
Hahn, Frank (1982) The neo-Ricardians. Cambridge Journal of Economics 1982 (6) p. 352 – 374
Keen, Steve (2011) Debunking Economics. Zed Books. London and New York
Keynes, John Maynard (1930) Vom Gelde (Treatise on Money).
Duncker & Humblot Berlin 1930.
Keynes, John Maynard (1933) A Monetary Theory of Production. In:
Collected Writings Vol. XIII, 408-411
Keynes, John Maynard (1936) The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. In: Collected Writings Vol. VII Marx, Karl (1859) Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. MEW 13.
Dietz Verl. Berlin 1974
Marx, Karl (1867) Das Kapital. Bd. 1 MEW 23. Dietz Verl. Berlin 1974
OECD (2015) In It Together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All. OECD Publishing. Paris
Piketty, Thomas (2014) Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard University Press Cambridge and London
Ricardo, David (1817) On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation
Say, Jean-Baptiste (1815) Traite d'economie politique. Calmann-Lévy 1974
Sraffa, Piero (1960) Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities: Prelude to a Critique of Economic theory.
Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Walras, Leon (1874) Éléments d'économie pure ou théorie de la richesse sociale. Lausanne: Corbaz et al. 1874
Hochschulschriften Standort Meschede
Elektronische Fassungen:
Kurz-URL: http://www.fh-swf.de/cms/hochschulschriften
Bisher erschienen:
05/2015 -Karl Betz: Comparing Paradigms on a Level Playing Field 04/2015 Karl Betz: Endogenous Money and the (Real) Rate of
Interest. A Comment on Marc Lavoie
03/2015 Frank Raulf: Asset Allocation mit dem Wolfe Algorithmus 02/2015 Karl Betz: The IS-MP-model and the difference between
neoclassical and Keynesian economics 01/2015 Frank Bödefeld : Animal Spirits
01/2013 Karl Betz · Martin Ehret · Frank Raulf: Multiplikatoren 02/2012 Karl Betz: Griechenland und die Eurokrise
01/2012 Karl Betz: The (not so) Benign Effects of Government Debt 01/2008 Rüdiger Waldkirch: Kann der Shareholder-Ansatz
Orientierung bieten?
