So, for each income level a separate saving curve will have to be drawn. Egmont, You continue to ignore the fact that the household purchased 100 units of which it consumed 90. Demand for Capital: Demand for capital comes from entrepreneurs who wish to invest in capital goods industries. For example, when a bicycle company builds a machine to produce more bicycles, that is considered to be investment. Higher the rate of interest, higher shall be the volume of savings. As best I can remember from my reading those many years ago, before and during the early part of the War the debate was in explicitly Marshallian, partial-equilibrium terms. Otherwise I think I agree with your explanation of the difference between liquidity preference and time preference.
It can be due to the contraction or expansion of bank credit. The train manufacturer tells me that I can get my new train a year from now. Also called the classical theory of interest, was developed at the time of classical economists like Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Thomas Malthus, who held the view that economic activities were guided by some kind of invisible hand i. The slope of the production possibility curve represents the marginal productivity of capital, and the slope of the indifference curve represents the marginal rate of time preference. It incorporates monetary factors with the non-monetary factors of savings and investment. In technical jargon, the rate of interest is determined by the intersection of investment demand schedule and the savings schedule.
But, in fact, the classical theory not merely neglects the influence of changes in the level of income, but involves formal error. The Classical Theory of Interest Rate and the Keynesian Liquidity Preference Theory of Interest Rates are widely applied. This will be true only if either all claims are non-marketable or, for whatever reason the claimholders creditors consider themselves locked into the claims they hold till the date of maturity of such claims. Why Post Keynesianism is Not Yet a Science. But there are many difficulties which Gesell did not face. An expansion of bank credit by increasing the supply of loanable funds brings about a fall in the market rate of interest below the equilibrium rate and vice versa.
Egmont, If we define business saving as undistributed profits profits after all expenses including dividends, which are zero in your example , then, if the business sector makes a loss, would it be incorrect to say that business sector has negative saving in the accounting period? There is thus a need to bring in a whole other set of curves relating the state of liquidity preference and the quantity of money. This is essentially the logical explanation of a tautology by construction which is different than direct definition — because in fact saving and investment are not the same thing at all — but they are in the same quantity. If either of them shift, then, in general, income will change; with the result that the whole schematism based on the assumption of a given income breaks down. It could be said that this is almost a neoclassical fetish. It is not correct to combine real factors like saving and investment with monetary factors like bank credit and dishoarding without bringing in changes in the level of income. There is, though, no need to read or understand the paper because to stay behind the curve is the natural place for After-Keynesians. You define income as household income.
It is the expected return on these other assets rather than the rate of interest on money that is driving investment that starts the whole cycle going. It means that if there is change in demand, the demand curve for savings can shift up or below the I curve without causing a change in the supply curve. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 6 4 : 561—575. Keynes simply ignored — or forgot about — it, leaving the real rate of interest totally unexplained. The booby traps I mentioned often make it sound as it is all just a matter of opinion. It seems to me you are caught somewhere between Keynesian macroeconomics and a Neoclassical individual choice theoretic position but not quite.
It was the determination of the rate of interest in the Marshallian sense the shortest of short runs that Keynes was most concerned about. Thi s i s not tr ue beca use money ca n be bor r owed f or t he pur chas e of consumer goods e. Now what should it be called? He will not pay more than the worth of capital to him at the margin. Ignores Monetary Factors: Classical theory takes into consideration only the real factors for determining the rate of interest and ignores the monetary factors. The ultimate situation is one of equality between saving and investment brought about by the equilibrium or the natural rate of interest. The value of the goods is therefore the result of the interaction in the marketplace of those different individual subjective preferences. One naturally began by supposing that the rate of interest must be determined in some sense by productivity-that it was, perhaps, simply the monetary equivalent of the marginal efficiency of capital, the latter being independently fixed by physical and technical considerations in conjunction with the expected demand.
Any discrepancy between the two is only a temporary phenomenon which would disappear in the long run. As such, there is no mechanism by which the nominal rate of interest can be affected directly through the effect of prospective changes in the value of money even though the real rate of interest will, by definition, be directly affected. If the real rate of interest is defined as the difference between the nominal rate of interest and the actual realized rate of inflation the real rate of interest becomes an endogenous variable because the actual rate of inflation and the nominal rate of interest cannot be known until the nominal rate of interest and all of the prices in the system are known. In other words, interest rates are definitely important in savings and investment, but they don't tell the whole story. Given marginal productivity, when the rate of interest falls, the entrepreneur will be induced to invest more till marginal productivity of capital is equal to the rate of interest. They would continue to save even if the rate of interest were zero. Perhaps I have oversimplified but I am seeing Keynes views as something like: — Decisions to invest are made independent of the interest rate, and are not to any great degree affected by them — Investment via the multiplier and the accounting identity determines the level of income that equalizes actual saving and investment — Investment and income are derived to a very large degree by these 2 things.
The market clearing price in period 2 is now below the unaltered unit wage costs and this means that the zero profit of period 1 turns into a loss. There, are, however, certain other factors which govern the demand for capital, such as the growth of population, technical progress, process of rationalization, the standard of living of the community, etc. Similarly, according to Keynes, the value of money reflects the interaction in the marketplace of the different degrees of comfort and confidence that individuals derive from holding money as immediately available purchasing power capacity in the face of an uncertain and unknown future. Thus the loanable funds theory is indeterminate unless the income level is already known. Savings and Investment: Classical economists assume that savings and investment are interring dependent. Given this almost universal definition of saving, the fact of saving means only that people consume less than their total income, nothing more! But a theory of interest that is monetary can apply equally to cases of direct or intermediated saving and investment, since the choice in both cases is one of deploying liquidity in investment or lending, whether that liquidity is borrowed or already on hand. Keynes had no basis for simply asserting that this consistency of plans is ensured entirely by way of adjustments in income to the exclusion of adjustments in the rate of interest.
It cannot tell us both. This implies that the cash balances are fairly elastic. From this follows first of all for economic policy that the familiar multiplier is formally defective. At this point the Robertsonians decided that the two theories were not the same, that Keynes was wrong, and that the rate of interest was determined by savings and investment presumably in a Marshallian sense irrespective of whether the short-run equilibrium was the same or not. It lacks the experimental method as a way of testing hypotheses.
What is the Source of Profit and Interest? In my book Free Banking and Monetary Reform, I argued for a non-Monetarist non-Keynesian approach to monetary policy, based on a theory of a competitive supply of money. Needless to stress that things become a bit more complex as soon as different term structures on the asset and liability side and the financing of investment expenditures is taken into the picture. It was never suggested that saving and investment could be unequal. According to it, if there is an increase in the demand for investment, the saving schedule remaining unchanged, the rate of interest will rise. These determinants are, indeed, themselves complex and each is capable of being affected by prospective changes in the others. This makes the money rate of interest unique in that the own rate of interest must adjust to equate the willingness to hold money with the existing stock of money since the price of money cannot change. The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes Vol.