tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post2022907861323645748..comments2023-08-29T01:27:13.772-07:00Comments on Magpie's Asymmetric Warfare: The Paradoxical Kalecki (part ii)Magpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post-68249947203251204942015-11-27T13:40:03.031-08:002015-11-27T13:40:03.031-08:00Sorry, old joke. It's from an old commercial f...Sorry, old joke. It's from an old commercial for breakfast cereal: "It's good stuff, Maynard." I have a lot of weird stuff lying around in my brain.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post-90949502604724920002015-11-25T17:41:50.995-08:002015-11-25T17:41:50.995-08:00"Maynard"?"Maynard"?Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post-69359742039205158322015-11-25T16:43:40.260-08:002015-11-25T16:43:40.260-08:00Good stuff, Maynard. I'm not sure you're c...Good stuff, Maynard. I'm not sure you're correct, but even if you're wrong, you're wrong in the right way.<br /><br />I'll have to think about all this carefully.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post-15683989359611579742015-11-25T15:09:15.093-08:002015-11-25T15:09:15.093-08:00Thanks, Robert King, for your kind comments.
I...Thanks, Robert King, for your kind comments.<br /><br />I've been thinking pretty much along the lines of your comment (i.e. implicit assumptions, and whatever happened to D) but I still reach a different conclusion.<br /><br />Hopefully, the final post will clarify these points.<br /><br />Best wishes.Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post-48398489955637240532015-11-25T13:43:11.443-08:002015-11-25T13:43:11.443-08:00Greetings Magpie!
I have enjoyed the first two pa...Greetings Magpie!<br /><br />I have enjoyed the first two parts of your blog’s trilogy on Kalecki, and appreciate your acknowledgement of our firm’s work on profits. I did not find any fallacies of composition in your work but I do see a problem with your analysis.<br /><br />You partly assume your conclusion to start: revenues are fixed at Y. If you cut wages and did not increase dividends, and kept your other assumptions the same, your revenue would fall short of Y and profits would not rise. Indeed, it is the increase in dividends—a profit source—that creates additional profits, not the wage cut. This can be seen if you rerun your example with a raise in dividends without any wage cuts. Thus, all you prove is that increasing dividends increases profits.<br /><br />Robert King<br />Economist<br />The Jerome Levy Forecasting CenterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com