Epstein Secrets

and, in fact to my embarrassment, it became clear that the models were modelling the economics of the classical economists; the economics of Smith, Ricardo, Marx, von Neumann (unmodified) and Sraffa. With hindsight this turned out to be a consequence of the second of the two original models I had propo

a form of income redistribution, Friedman's ideas suffer from needing continuous flows. I believe my own proposals achieve the same aims of those of Milton Friedman, at much less cost. I would ask that readers consider these proposals to be more neo—Friedmanite than neo- Marxian. If, however, my ideas are incor

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

a window. To lighten the mood, | said something about the Red Sox. He said “Getty, I getta papers on banka reform every week. Yours isa the best.” Milton Friedman, another nobelist, had a different take. We had given talks ata Cato Foundation symposium in San Francisco. He hated my idea. No great surprise. He h

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

covering payments in the downswings. That would be a problem if accounts yielded zero return, as checkable bank deposits do. The gist of my answer to Milton Friedman was that no amount of money is too much if it yields as much return as other assets of equal risk. Accounts are hedged or leveraged to do so. Omnibus