Epstein Secrets

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

vailable for business to borrow and invest. But business lacked the “animal spirits” to take such a risk ina slump. We saw the same story after 2008. Keynes’ proposal was for government to do the borrowing and investing instead. That’s part of the “fiscal policy” I described in Chapter 1. Here we tend to

saving is invested, as I use the word, but finds different returns. Saving under the mattress is investment at zero return, and drops output just as Keynes said. Investment at the current average return keeps output unchanged. That’s what Keynes meant. But investment at lower returns lowers output, and c

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

d their market value in return, as if on the books of a firm. Chapter 6: Parallels with the Firm 2/4/16 21 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011055 Marshall’s pupil Keynes was thoroughly a marginalist, as are economists in general today and as am I. One of the features of his General Theory of 1936 was a kind of double-

t the human capital of children. But Farr deserves credit for pointing out that human capital in general capitalizes pay less invested consumption. Keynes’ teacher Alfred Marshall agreed with Farr in 1990’. As I read this passage, Marshall interpreted maintenance consumption as investment. So did B. F.

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

duced from retained earnings within companies. For many economists, somewhat oddly, this will be seen as a serious flaw. Since at least the time of Keynes, investment and saving have been at the heart of macroeconomic modelling, and this is true of neo-classical and other heterodox modelling, not just

hat this debt can be expanded indefinitely is to undermine the most important value this debt has; that of security. In similar vein I find much of Milton Friedman's monetary theory terrifyingly naive. However I have found the blogging of 'kitchen-sink' monetarists such as Simon Ward [Ward] and John Hussman [Hus

loyment is higher in model 46 than model 4A. Also the ratio of returns to labour to returns to capital is significantly higher in model 4A. This is Keynes writ large. Unlike static equilibria, dynamic equilibria can have multiple points of stability. The point of equilibrium that is reached depends on