Epstein Secrets

zero just as buildings do. Yoram Ben-Porath combined these ideas and more in a masterly life- cycle model published in 1967. We'll get to it soon. Schultz called the part of consumption exhausted in taste satisfaction “pure consumption”. The part invested in human capital was “pure investment”. I change

ibility. His mineshaft scenario works if it somehow maximizes return in the big picture. My language differs from Keynes’ in several ways. I prefer Myrdal’s ex ante - ex post dichotomy, published three years after the General Theory, to Keynes’ equivalent attempted-realized one. Like Myrdal, and unlike

realized, as it were, in his person. The conversion of some consumption into human capital was a favorite theme of Frank Knight a generation before Schultz. Only the rest is what Schultz called pure consumption eliminated from the economy in satisfying tastes. Becker added in 1964 that this investment mu

nvestment is the path out of slumps. Investment will come when prospects of return do. Although the General Theory was published three years before Myrdal’s ex ante - ex post distinction, Keynes would have realized the same thing. | think he made the understandable mistake of supposing that the differen

Bawerk and the Austrian school are underrated. The pantheon might have room for him. Am I being too tough on later economists? We should not forget Schultz and Ben- Porath. Schultz’ greatest achievement, unless Mincer beat him, was in spotlighting human depreciation. That left me to ask where this huge f

ybe Jevons or John Rae or Leon Walras. Time has not been kind to the teachings of Keynes. I would now rank his teacher Alfred Marshall higher. I like Myrdal’s magnificent ex ante - ex post distinction. Boehm Bawerk and the Austrian school are underrated. The pantheon might have room for him. Am I being