tailieunhanh - History of Economic Analysis part 64

History of Economic Analysis part 64. At the time of his death in 1950, Joseph Schumpeter-one of the major figures in economics during the first half of the 20th century-was working on his monumental History of Economic Analysis. A complete history of humankind's theoretical efforts to understand economic phenomena from ancient Greece to the present, this book is an important contribution to the history of ideas as well as to economics. | History of economic analysis 592 So far as this point is concerned there seems to be no difference at all between Mill and Marshall. Both recognized the importance that the desire to hold money rather than to spend it on goods and services may acquire in certain situations crises and depressions in particular. And the only difference there is on this point between Mill and Keynes is this the former confined this excess demand for money to situations of this kind of which it is one of the consequences and which therefore cannot be explained by it whereas the latter considered the excess demand for money in depressions only as the most spectacular form of a phenomenon that in less spectacular forms is well-nigh ubiquitous or is well-nigh ubiquitous at least in certain phases of capitalist evolution so that it may become the cause of either cyclical downturns or secular stagnation. Malthus seems to have taken the latter A much more important reason for Malthus dissent from Say and much more basic to his principle of effectual or effective demand was however his opinion that saving even if promptly invested may lead to deadlock if carried beyond a certain optimal point op. cit. ch. 7 3 . He did not go as far as Lauderdale 12 who was the real anti-saver of the age. He granted to the pro-savers even more than he should have done namely that increase in capital cannot be effected in any other way than by saving. But he maintained that carried beyond an optimum point saving would create an untenable situation the effectual demand for consumers goods from capitalists and landlords would not increase enough to take care of the increased supply of products that results from an everincreasing conversion of revenue into capital and the effectual demand for consumers goods from laborers though it would increase indeed cannot constitute a motive for further accumulating and employment of capital. It is this which constitutes Malthus fundamental objection to Say s law. The