Epstein Secrets

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

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 proposed in 2006. In this model wealth is implic

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

n economics had been systematically disproved by neoclassical economics. More reading of economics quickly proved the second assumption to be false, Sraffa was the victor of the Cambridge capital controversies. The labour theory of value is indeed nonsense. However the concept of absolute value is not

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

ted as a prior claim on pay, just as with the firm. ] may have been the only person to think so since Quesnay and the physiocrats, although Mill and Sraffa might be interpreted that way. But who has thought what doesn’t matter. Quesnay’s idea is a mathematical possibility that must be addressed. I’ll ge