Epstein Secrets

e value. The physiocrats were also correct in their belief that land can provide value, in its role in capturing the sun's rays. Where Smith, Marx, Ricardo, Sraffa etc were correct was in their belief that value is an inherent quantity, embodied in the goods and services in the economy. However, as was

persistent 'anomalies' as anomalies, ignoring raw data while retreating into the comforts of intellectual hypothesis, whether this be neoclassical, Keynesian, Marxian, behavioural or other. Even in areas such as post-Keynesian or behavioural economics, were data collection has become something of a fetish

s are selected for successful reproduction. | will try to show that the classical school treated this as axiomatic from Petty through Smith, Malthus, Ricardo and Mill. Malthus was only the most obvious case. It lapsed from attention when a brilliant new insight called marginalism preferred to do without e

which I accept but prefer to rephrase. I have traced Keynes’ argument and language on these points because | think it is now generally accepted by Keynesian and anti-Keynesian and neo-Keynesian schools alike. That’s why I think my own interpretation differs from a general Chapter 4 Mill’s Idea 1/11/16 5

es. They cannot gain by consumption restraint for the two excellent reasons that there is no consumption to spare and no niche space if there were. Ricardo, Malthus and West all warned against rote replication in economies already developed. We must create means to make more from less. I suspect that we

ans. (I call myself a free market Democrat, whether or not that’s a contradiction in terms.) Freshwater views tend to oppose intervention, but accept Keynesian basic definitions and equations such as the Y =] +C doctrine and the distinction between “attempted saving” and investment. It is these I question.