凯恩斯在1936年11月9日的《凯恩斯信》中对罗宾逊的严厉批评(“……你的论点……绝对是胡说八道”),是因为罗宾逊使用了不正确的M=L(r)而不是正确的M=L(Y,r)。

M. E. Brady
{"title":"凯恩斯在1936年11月9日的《凯恩斯信》中对罗宾逊的严厉批评(“……你的论点……绝对是胡说八道”),是因为罗宾逊使用了不正确的M=L(r)而不是正确的M=L(Y,r)。","authors":"M. E. Brady","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3726778","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Keynes’s very negative reaction to J. Robinson’s misuse of Keynes’s initial, beginning, introductory, preliminary exposition of liquidity preference in chapter 13 of the General Theory is explained by the fact that J. Robinson was repeating the same identical error made by R. Hawtrey, D. Robertson, and H. Henderson, which was to simply ignore Keynes’s M=L(r,Y) analyzed by Keynes on p.199-209 of the General Theory and incorporated on page 298 as part of his formal IS-LM(LP) model presented on pp. 298-299 in chapter 21 in Part IV of the General Theory.<br><br>Instead, she used M=L( r) and/or M=L2(r). It is impossible to present an analysis of Keynes’s theory of liquidity preference unless (Y,r) space is used.<br><br>Nowhere in Robinson’s 1935 comments on the final draft of the General Theory, sent to her by Keynes for review and comment, is there the slightest criticism/mention/discussion/query of a conflict between the two functions M=L( r ) and M=L( r,Y). Keynes had made it clear in his exposition in chapter 15 of the General Theory that the exposition in chapter 13 was the alpha, while the exposition in chapter 15 was the omega, with Keynes’s analysis on pp. 179-182 being the equivalent material he used in his tutoring of R. Harrod in the July -September, 1935 time period, after which Harrod acknowledged to Keynes in his letter of August 30th,1935, that the I=S equilibrium was simply a single, downwardly sloping line in (r,Y) space that intersected NOTHING, so that Keynes’s LM curve, M=L(r,Y), was absolutely required for an equilibrium to exist in (r,Y) space. Harrod was very clear. In this letter Harrod credited Keynes with making a fundamental, 'radical reconstitution’ of the theory of the rate of interest.<br><br>Keynes now realized that Robinson had NEVER EVER understood what he had done in the General Theory, since the M=L(r ) curve could, at best, only be “interpreted “as a single, upward sloping line in (r,Y) space. Robinson’s misinterpretation is repeated in all heterodox, Post Keynesian and Institutionalist discussions such as Tily, who is a good example of the faithful continuing to put forth Robinson’s erroneous claims about Keynes’s theory of the rate of interest being a purely monetary one and as being what Keynes meant in the General Theory.","PeriodicalId":226815,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"J M Keynes’s Very Severe criticism ( '…your argument…is most certainly nonsense.') of J. Robinson in Keynes’s Letter of November 9th,1936 was due to Robinson’s Use of the Incorrect M=L(r) Instead of the Correct M=L(Y,r)\",\"authors\":\"M. E. Brady\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3726778\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Keynes’s very negative reaction to J. Robinson’s misuse of Keynes’s initial, beginning, introductory, preliminary exposition of liquidity preference in chapter 13 of the General Theory is explained by the fact that J. Robinson was repeating the same identical error made by R. Hawtrey, D. Robertson, and H. Henderson, which was to simply ignore Keynes’s M=L(r,Y) analyzed by Keynes on p.199-209 of the General Theory and incorporated on page 298 as part of his formal IS-LM(LP) model presented on pp. 298-299 in chapter 21 in Part IV of the General Theory.<br><br>Instead, she used M=L( r) and/or M=L2(r). It is impossible to present an analysis of Keynes’s theory of liquidity preference unless (Y,r) space is used.<br><br>Nowhere in Robinson’s 1935 comments on the final draft of the General Theory, sent to her by Keynes for review and comment, is there the slightest criticism/mention/discussion/query of a conflict between the two functions M=L( r ) and M=L( r,Y). Keynes had made it clear in his exposition in chapter 15 of the General Theory that the exposition in chapter 13 was the alpha, while the exposition in chapter 15 was the omega, with Keynes’s analysis on pp. 179-182 being the equivalent material he used in his tutoring of R. Harrod in the July -September, 1935 time period, after which Harrod acknowledged to Keynes in his letter of August 30th,1935, that the I=S equilibrium was simply a single, downwardly sloping line in (r,Y) space that intersected NOTHING, so that Keynes’s LM curve, M=L(r,Y), was absolutely required for an equilibrium to exist in (r,Y) space. Harrod was very clear. In this letter Harrod credited Keynes with making a fundamental, 'radical reconstitution’ of the theory of the rate of interest.<br><br>Keynes now realized that Robinson had NEVER EVER understood what he had done in the General Theory, since the M=L(r ) curve could, at best, only be “interpreted “as a single, upward sloping line in (r,Y) space. Robinson’s misinterpretation is repeated in all heterodox, Post Keynesian and Institutionalist discussions such as Tily, who is a good example of the faithful continuing to put forth Robinson’s erroneous claims about Keynes’s theory of the rate of interest being a purely monetary one and as being what Keynes meant in the General Theory.\",\"PeriodicalId\":226815,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3726778\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3726778","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

凯恩斯对罗宾逊滥用凯恩斯在《通论》第13章中对流动性偏好的最初的、开始的、介绍性的、初步的阐述的非常负面的反应,可以用这样一个事实来解释,即罗宾逊重复了R. Hawtrey、D. Robertson和H. Henderson所犯的同样的错误。这就是简单地忽略凯恩斯在《通论》第199-209页分析的M=L(r,Y),并将其纳入第298页,作为他在《通论》第四部分第21章第298-299页的正式IS-LM(LP)模型的一部分。相反,她使用M=L(r)和/或M=L2(r)。除非使用(Y,r)空间,否则不可能对凯恩斯的流动性偏好理论进行分析。1935年,凯恩斯寄给罗宾逊对《通论》定稿的评论中,没有任何地方对M=L(r)和M=L(r,Y)这两个函数之间的冲突提出批评/提及/讨论/质疑。凯恩斯在《通论》第15章的论述中明确指出,第13章的论述是alpha,而第15章的论述是omega,凯恩斯在第179-182页的分析与他在1935年7月至9月期间给r·哈罗德(R. Harrod)辅导时使用的材料是相同的,之后哈罗德在1935年8月30日给凯恩斯的信中承认,I=S均衡只是一个单一的,在(r,Y)空间中向下倾斜的直线与NOTHING相交,因此凯恩斯的LM曲线M=L(r,Y)是(r,Y)空间中存在均衡所绝对需要的。哈罗德说得很清楚。在这封信中,哈罗德称赞凯恩斯对利率理论进行了根本性的“彻底重构”。凯恩斯现在意识到,罗宾逊从来没有理解过他在《通论》中所做的事情,因为M=L(r)曲线充其量只能被“解释”为(r,Y)空间中一条向上倾斜的直线。罗宾森的误解在所有非正统的,后凯恩斯主义和制度主义的讨论中反复出现,比如提利,他就是一个很好的例子,忠实的人继续提出罗宾森的错误主张,认为凯恩斯的利率理论是纯粹的货币理论,是凯恩斯在《通论》中的意思。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
J M Keynes’s Very Severe criticism ( '…your argument…is most certainly nonsense.') of J. Robinson in Keynes’s Letter of November 9th,1936 was due to Robinson’s Use of the Incorrect M=L(r) Instead of the Correct M=L(Y,r)
Keynes’s very negative reaction to J. Robinson’s misuse of Keynes’s initial, beginning, introductory, preliminary exposition of liquidity preference in chapter 13 of the General Theory is explained by the fact that J. Robinson was repeating the same identical error made by R. Hawtrey, D. Robertson, and H. Henderson, which was to simply ignore Keynes’s M=L(r,Y) analyzed by Keynes on p.199-209 of the General Theory and incorporated on page 298 as part of his formal IS-LM(LP) model presented on pp. 298-299 in chapter 21 in Part IV of the General Theory.

Instead, she used M=L( r) and/or M=L2(r). It is impossible to present an analysis of Keynes’s theory of liquidity preference unless (Y,r) space is used.

Nowhere in Robinson’s 1935 comments on the final draft of the General Theory, sent to her by Keynes for review and comment, is there the slightest criticism/mention/discussion/query of a conflict between the two functions M=L( r ) and M=L( r,Y). Keynes had made it clear in his exposition in chapter 15 of the General Theory that the exposition in chapter 13 was the alpha, while the exposition in chapter 15 was the omega, with Keynes’s analysis on pp. 179-182 being the equivalent material he used in his tutoring of R. Harrod in the July -September, 1935 time period, after which Harrod acknowledged to Keynes in his letter of August 30th,1935, that the I=S equilibrium was simply a single, downwardly sloping line in (r,Y) space that intersected NOTHING, so that Keynes’s LM curve, M=L(r,Y), was absolutely required for an equilibrium to exist in (r,Y) space. Harrod was very clear. In this letter Harrod credited Keynes with making a fundamental, 'radical reconstitution’ of the theory of the rate of interest.

Keynes now realized that Robinson had NEVER EVER understood what he had done in the General Theory, since the M=L(r ) curve could, at best, only be “interpreted “as a single, upward sloping line in (r,Y) space. Robinson’s misinterpretation is repeated in all heterodox, Post Keynesian and Institutionalist discussions such as Tily, who is a good example of the faithful continuing to put forth Robinson’s erroneous claims about Keynes’s theory of the rate of interest being a purely monetary one and as being what Keynes meant in the General Theory.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
"The Eyes and Ears of the Agricultural Markets": A History of Information in Interwar Agricultural Economics Deepening and Widening Social Identity Analysis in Economics In Search of Santa Claus: Samuelson, Stigler, and Coase Theorem Worlds Reports from China: Joan Robinson as Observer and Travel Writer, 1953-78 Introduction to a Symposium on Carl Menger on the Centenary of his Death
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1