{"title":"1937年3月31日,凯恩斯给希克斯关于IS-LM模型的信:“我曾经试过所有的方程,就像你做过的那样。”","authors":"M. E. Brady","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3152755","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Keynes told Hicks very clearly on March 31st, 1937 that Keynes had already done what Hicks had done on page 156 of his 1937 Econometrica paper, which was to add Aggregate Actual Income I (Keynes’s Y) into the three equation set comprising Hicks’s later version of Keynes’s IS-LM model. However, Keynes then told Hicks that that was an error that he had already rectified in the General Theory. He clearly told Hicks that it was Expected Aggregate Income, and not Actual Income, that belonged in the Investment equation. Unfortunately, Hicks refused to follow Keynes’s advice until 1981. Forty-five year later, Hicks admitted in a retraction published in the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics that he had erroneously altered the IS-LM model of Keynes by removing expectations and uncertainty from it. It is quite impossible for Hicks, or Hicks-Hansen, to be regarded as the creators of a model that Keynes had already presented and applied in Section IV of Chapter 21 of the General Theory in 1936. It is also quite impossible to view Keynes’s IS-LP(LM) version as a neoclassical model. I suggest that the correct way of categorizing the model is as the Keynes-hicks-hansen IS-LM model with Keynes’s name capitalized and Hicks’s and Hansen’s names not capitalized. Keynes made it crystal clear that his model was a set of “equations”. Keynes then told Hicks that “present income has a predominant effect in determining liquidity preference and savings that it does not possess in its influence over the inducement to invest.” It is quite impossible to support the Joan Robinson claim that Keynes’s Theory of the rate of interest was a purely monetary one. Joan Robinson’s lack of even a basic understanding of pre-algebra explains her complete failure to grasp Keynes’s crucial sentence to Hicks, “I tried the equations, as you have done, with I (Keynes’s Y-authors insert) in all of them.”","PeriodicalId":127579,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Keynes; Keynesian; Post-Keynesian (Topic)","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Keynes's March 31, 1937 Message to Hicks About the IS-LM Model: 'At One Time I Tried the Equations, as You Have Done, with I in All of Them'\",\"authors\":\"M. E. Brady\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3152755\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Keynes told Hicks very clearly on March 31st, 1937 that Keynes had already done what Hicks had done on page 156 of his 1937 Econometrica paper, which was to add Aggregate Actual Income I (Keynes’s Y) into the three equation set comprising Hicks’s later version of Keynes’s IS-LM model. However, Keynes then told Hicks that that was an error that he had already rectified in the General Theory. He clearly told Hicks that it was Expected Aggregate Income, and not Actual Income, that belonged in the Investment equation. Unfortunately, Hicks refused to follow Keynes’s advice until 1981. Forty-five year later, Hicks admitted in a retraction published in the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics that he had erroneously altered the IS-LM model of Keynes by removing expectations and uncertainty from it. It is quite impossible for Hicks, or Hicks-Hansen, to be regarded as the creators of a model that Keynes had already presented and applied in Section IV of Chapter 21 of the General Theory in 1936. It is also quite impossible to view Keynes’s IS-LP(LM) version as a neoclassical model. I suggest that the correct way of categorizing the model is as the Keynes-hicks-hansen IS-LM model with Keynes’s name capitalized and Hicks’s and Hansen’s names not capitalized. Keynes made it crystal clear that his model was a set of “equations”. Keynes then told Hicks that “present income has a predominant effect in determining liquidity preference and savings that it does not possess in its influence over the inducement to invest.” It is quite impossible to support the Joan Robinson claim that Keynes’s Theory of the rate of interest was a purely monetary one. Joan Robinson’s lack of even a basic understanding of pre-algebra explains her complete failure to grasp Keynes’s crucial sentence to Hicks, “I tried the equations, as you have done, with I (Keynes’s Y-authors insert) in all of them.”\",\"PeriodicalId\":127579,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ERN: Keynes; Keynesian; Post-Keynesian (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-03-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ERN: Keynes; Keynesian; Post-Keynesian (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3152755\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Keynes; Keynesian; Post-Keynesian (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3152755","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
1937年3月31日,凯恩斯非常明确地告诉希克斯,凯恩斯已经做了希克斯在1937年《计量经济学》论文第156页所做的事情,即将实际总收入I(凯恩斯的Y)加入到希克斯后来版本的凯恩斯IS-LM模型的三个方程中。然而,凯恩斯随后告诉希克斯,这是一个错误,他已经在《通论》中纠正了。他明确地告诉希克斯,在投资方程中应该是预期总收入,而不是实际收入。不幸的是,希克斯直到1981年才接受凯恩斯的建议。45年后,希克斯在《后凯恩斯经济学杂志》(Journal of Post Keynes Economics)上发表的一篇撤回文章中承认,他错误地修改了凯恩斯的IS-LM模型,去掉了其中的预期和不确定性。希克斯或希克斯-汉森不可能被视为凯恩斯已经在1936年《通论》第21章第四节中提出并应用的模型的创造者。将凯恩斯的is - lp (LM)版本视为新古典主义模型也是完全不可能的。我建议正确的分类方法是凯恩斯-希克斯-汉森is - lm模型,凯恩斯的名字大写,希克斯和汉森的名字不大写。凯恩斯明确表示,他的模型是一套“方程式”。凯恩斯随后告诉希克斯,“当前收入在决定流动性偏好和储蓄方面具有主导作用,而在投资动机方面却没有这种影响。”要支持琼•罗宾逊(Joan Robinson)关于凯恩斯的利率理论纯粹是货币理论的说法,是完全不可能的。琼·罗宾逊对前代数甚至缺乏基本的理解,这解释了她完全无法理解凯恩斯对希克斯说的那句至关重要的话:“我尝试了这些方程,就像你做的那样,所有方程中都有I(凯恩斯的y作者插入)。”
Keynes's March 31, 1937 Message to Hicks About the IS-LM Model: 'At One Time I Tried the Equations, as You Have Done, with I in All of Them'
Keynes told Hicks very clearly on March 31st, 1937 that Keynes had already done what Hicks had done on page 156 of his 1937 Econometrica paper, which was to add Aggregate Actual Income I (Keynes’s Y) into the three equation set comprising Hicks’s later version of Keynes’s IS-LM model. However, Keynes then told Hicks that that was an error that he had already rectified in the General Theory. He clearly told Hicks that it was Expected Aggregate Income, and not Actual Income, that belonged in the Investment equation. Unfortunately, Hicks refused to follow Keynes’s advice until 1981. Forty-five year later, Hicks admitted in a retraction published in the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics that he had erroneously altered the IS-LM model of Keynes by removing expectations and uncertainty from it. It is quite impossible for Hicks, or Hicks-Hansen, to be regarded as the creators of a model that Keynes had already presented and applied in Section IV of Chapter 21 of the General Theory in 1936. It is also quite impossible to view Keynes’s IS-LP(LM) version as a neoclassical model. I suggest that the correct way of categorizing the model is as the Keynes-hicks-hansen IS-LM model with Keynes’s name capitalized and Hicks’s and Hansen’s names not capitalized. Keynes made it crystal clear that his model was a set of “equations”. Keynes then told Hicks that “present income has a predominant effect in determining liquidity preference and savings that it does not possess in its influence over the inducement to invest.” It is quite impossible to support the Joan Robinson claim that Keynes’s Theory of the rate of interest was a purely monetary one. Joan Robinson’s lack of even a basic understanding of pre-algebra explains her complete failure to grasp Keynes’s crucial sentence to Hicks, “I tried the equations, as you have done, with I (Keynes’s Y-authors insert) in all of them.”