I'm pleasantly surprised that an evaluation of Doug's writing has changed overnight from "crap" to the paragon of excellence in plain English. :-)
At 10:18 PM -0400 4/6/01, Dennis wrote:
>From: "Dennis" <dperrin13 at mediaone.net>
>To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Subject: Re: European Unions
>Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 22:18:42 -0400
>X-Priority: 3
>Sender: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>
>Yoshie wrote:
>
>> First of all, why do you consider Engels' simple words to be
>> objectionable "jargon," while remaining unoffended by exchanges such
>> as the following?
>>
>> >Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote:
>> >
>> >>In particular, I am confused as to how post keynesian theorists
>> >>insist on both the endogeneity of the money supply (that is, the
>> >>Fed is obliged to supply the quantity of money that is demanded by
>> >>economic agents) while elevating the Fed to the key, autonomous
>> >>institution in the determination of the performance of the
>> >>macroeconomy.
>> >
>> >There's more than one kind of endogenist. Quoting myself from Wall
>Street:
>> >
>> >>Robert Pollin (1991; 1993) usefully divided the two major schools
>> >>of post-Keynesian endogenists into the accommodative and the
>> >>structural. Accommodative endogeneity holds that the central bank
>> >>has no choice but to validate private credit demand by providing
>> >>whatever reserves the banking system needs to accommodate the loans
>> >>that it has already made; that means there is no effective
>> >>constraint on credit. Leading proponents of this school include
>> >>Nicholas Kaldor and Basil Moore. Structural endogeneity - the
>> >>branch that appeals to both Pollin and me - holds that central bank
>> >>attempts to constrain the growth of credit are frequently evaded
>> >>through creative finance.
>>
>> Your response cannot but originate in your prejudice against Marxism,
>> since you don't find non-Marxist "jargon" objectionable.
>
>Didn't read this post till now. It's crap.
Yoshie