Sunday, January 18, 2009
Becker Cribs From Murphy?
Von Pepe suggests so, pointing out this passage:
Unfortunately I don't think the timing works. My piece ran on January 12, whereas Becker's was posted the day before. (Of course I wrote mine before Becker's ran, so I am certain I didn't subconsciously take from him without attribution.)
[W]ith unemployment at 7% to 8% of the labor force, it is impossible to target effective spending programs that primarily utilize unemployed workers, or underemployed capital. Spending on infrastructure, and especially on health, energy, and education, will mainly attract employed persons from other activities to the activities stimulated by the government spending. The net job creation from these and related spending is likely to be rather small. In addition, if the private activities crowded out are more valuable than the activities hastily stimulated by this plan, the value of the increase in employment and GDP could be very small, even negative.
Unfortunately I don't think the timing works. My piece ran on January 12, whereas Becker's was posted the day before. (Of course I wrote mine before Becker's ran, so I am certain I didn't subconsciously take from him without attribution.)
Comments:
Off topic, but for some reason I cannot comment over at The Austrian Economists.
In Robert Murphy's discussion of reswitching, he writes, "What Samuelson has done is simply invent a fictitious world in which there are only two ways of producing a particular good." This suggests that reswitching would not be possible if more techniques existed for producing each commodity.
In other words, Robert Murphy has made a mathematical error. Reswitching and capital-reversing can arise even if an uncountably infinite number of techniques are known for producing commodities. Garegnani has at least one example.
This failure to get his sums correct, I think, leads to his points not being well-taken.
In Robert Murphy's discussion of reswitching, he writes, "What Samuelson has done is simply invent a fictitious world in which there are only two ways of producing a particular good." This suggests that reswitching would not be possible if more techniques existed for producing each commodity.
In other words, Robert Murphy has made a mathematical error. Reswitching and capital-reversing can arise even if an uncountably infinite number of techniques are known for producing commodities. Garegnani has at least one example.
This failure to get his sums correct, I think, leads to his points not being well-taken.
In other words, Robert Murphy has made a mathematical error.
No I didn't, since I never made the claim that you attributed to me. ("This suggests....")
I wasn't contrasting two-good models with N-good models, I was contrasting models with the real world. And I quoted Samuelson himself who thought that reswitching wasn't an issue in the real world.
It's true, I was not aware of the examples involving an infinite number of techniques, but it's not really relevant since I never claimed they didn't exist. (Sorry for pseudo-triple-negative there.)
No I didn't, since I never made the claim that you attributed to me. ("This suggests....")
I wasn't contrasting two-good models with N-good models, I was contrasting models with the real world. And I quoted Samuelson himself who thought that reswitching wasn't an issue in the real world.
It's true, I was not aware of the examples involving an infinite number of techniques, but it's not really relevant since I never claimed they didn't exist. (Sorry for pseudo-triple-negative there.)
Is that a quadruple?
not
not
never
didn't
If so, it might be one of your best.
Post a Comment
not
not
never
didn't
If so, it might be one of your best.
# posted by 
: January 21, 2009 at 7:10 PM
: January 21, 2009 at 7:10 PM Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]