tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14858768.post112666680882103563..comments2023-02-15T20:06:13.584+08:00Comments on Rational Choice: Evaluating hyperwage theory - or, what have you learned from your basic economics? (2)Roehlanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04018109135738021378noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14858768.post-77542915486951924632009-09-30T23:49:04.807+08:002009-09-30T23:49:04.807+08:00I am starting to write a series of blog entries th...I am starting to write a series of blog entries that critique Hyper Wage Theory. But I'm glad to find your site.Elevic Pernishttp://elhyiskolar.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14858768.post-1126801886139721912005-09-16T00:31:00.000+08:002005-09-16T00:31:00.000+08:00assume you live in a two period world, what is sav...assume you live in a two period world, what is savings and investments today but to allow you to consume more tomorrow. don’t treat savings as a leakage in the system. i think econblogger has shown enough that hyperwage theory is just a new collar for an old dog that’s keynesian economics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14858768.post-1126764628421812502005-09-15T14:10:00.000+08:002005-09-15T14:10:00.000+08:00Actually, Keynes said that it is the inability of ...Actually, Keynes said that it is the inability of the interest rate to match savings and investment which is the reason for unemployment. If interest rates do not equalize savings and investment, another mechanism will - and that is output adjustment. Hence it is not consumption, but the savings-investment balance which is the key.Roehlanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04018109135738021378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14858768.post-1126763470324731862005-09-15T13:51:00.000+08:002005-09-15T13:51:00.000+08:00we will never hit full employment (or say attain t...we will never hit full employment (or say attain that in 100 years).. by that time we will ne at hyperwage levels, then as I have written, we will shift to inflation centric economics..<BR/><BR/>Keynes has recognized that consupmtion is the MOST IMPORTANT of all factors... it is the key to the economy..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14858768.post-1126763344099030272005-09-15T13:49:00.000+08:002005-09-15T13:49:00.000+08:00Anon is confused between consumption and investmen...Anon is confused between consumption and investment and savings....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14858768.post-1126741964531254582005-09-15T07:52:00.000+08:002005-09-15T07:52:00.000+08:00I have to disagree. At most what you could get is ...I have to disagree. At most what you could get is an increase in the existing multiplier owing to a transfer from a sector with lower propensity to consume, to a sector with higher propensity to consume. <BR/>But the story is still dead in the water. Once the economy hits full employment, the multiplier grinds to a halt. No 20-fold increase in income to Hong Kong standards. <BR/><BR/>The money multiplier of the banking system merely exploits the fact that banks use a fractional reserves. The quantity of money created in this system then affects the economy through the usual channels. It also cannot magically push output beyond its potential.<BR/><BR/>I am offering fatal arguments against hyperwage theory, hence, I must decline your request to defend it (even on a hypothetical basis.)Roehlanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04018109135738021378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14858768.post-1126741884559512072005-09-15T07:51:00.000+08:002005-09-15T07:51:00.000+08:00so the money that employers saved, they dont find ...so the money that employers saved, they dont find their way to the economy? no investors make use of these savings? how many of these employers are hoarding cash and putting them under their mattresses?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14858768.post-1126737945063446862005-09-15T06:45:00.000+08:002005-09-15T06:45:00.000+08:00sorry to disagree with you on NO NET INCREASE in p...sorry to disagree with you on NO NET INCREASE in purchasing power. You seem to be forgetting that MONEY in the hands of the employer is DEAD money but once it is released to Maid it introduces MORE money into the system. Pls recall that P1,000 in the hands of the employer (saved) is only P1,000 for the entire economy,BUT BUT once that money is given to the maids, there will be P5,000 introduced to the economy (THis is in fact Keynesian multiplier, and is the same multiplier effect EXPLOITED by the banking system).<BR/>Thus, in my opinion, your statement is wrong... but dont worry, I used to think like you do.. but I changed with I realized that money is not 1+1=2 but actual 1*5=5.... (this is jumping the gun but I will discuss this in my series...<BR/><BR/>Now, im sorry i cant continue discussing bec I am very bz writing my book. But I urge you to do one thing. Assume Hyperwage is true, then use whatever knowledge you have to defend it...<BR/><BR/>I just gave you an example above. The default mindset of the economists is that 1+1=2. Therefore no net purchasing power increase.. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, I have just shown you that MONEY does not work that way. MONEY is multiplied once it is moved from ONE hand (where it was just sitting there as savings or unused) to the OTHER hand where it can be subject to the multiplier effect.<BR/><BR/>But then you are the economist not me...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com