Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis19661(3), 108
The “burden of the debt” still appears to be a matter of concern to the United States public, economic teaching notwithstanding. In the debates preceding the 1964 tax cut, such matters as the existing budgetary deficit and the swelling public debt evoked as much passion as confusion. In this paper we intend to focus on one question: will a tax cut designed to generate a full employment equilibrium necessarily increase the debt burden, as defined by Domar. In particular, we are interested in the impact of a tax reduction on the debt burden, given that a budgetary deficit exists; and under the condition that the monetary authorities have decided to tighten credit conditions. We shall assume throughout that interest rates are determined by the monetary authorities, and that their policy is dictated by balance of payments rather than aggregate demand considerations. it will also be assumed that the tax reduction takes into account any planned increase in the rate of interest. Finally, we assume that budgetary deficits are financed by borrowing from the nonbank public and not by new money.
The Review of Economics and Statistics196648(4), 395
The time series of consumption is explained as a consequence of expenditure. The quantity theory hypothesis relates the level of consumption in money terms to the nominal quantity of money. This is, of course, a variant of the normal quantity theory where the level of money income is determined by the amount of money. By subtracting investment from the dependent variable, one makes the quantity theory formulation directly comparable to its Keynesian rival. Money exerts its influence on consumption directly or via elements of expenditure such as investment. With a different definition of autonomous expenditure, we get rather different results for United Kingdom data. Specifically, the monetary hypothesis is more successful for our early period up to the First World War, while the inter-war years are a strongly Keynesian period. After the Second World War, neither model has very high explanatory power, while for the overall period, there is a slightly better fit with expenditure. Exogeneity of Money
Journal Article The Pasinetti Paradox in Neoclassical and More General Models Get access Paul A. Samuelson, Paul A. Samuelson Massachusetts Institute of Technology Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Franco Modigliani Franco Modigliani Massachusetts Institute of Technology Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 33, Issue 4, October 1966, Pages 269–301, https://doi.org/10.2307/2974425 Published: 01 October 1966
I. The simplest Austrian and more general models, 568. — II. Why reswitching can occur, 571. — III. Reswitching in a durable-machine model, 573. — IV. The well-behaved factor-price frontier, 574. — V. Unconventional relation of total product and interest, 576. — VI. Unconventional capital/output ratios, 577. — VII. Reverse capital deepening and denial of diminishing returns, 579. — VIII. Conclusion, 582.
The Review of Economics and Statistics196648(4), 419
HE absence of any observable flow of net in the world argues for exclusive adherence to an income-originating interpretation of the value added by particular industries or sectors. Yet, the merit of the quest for a net production measure cannot be gainsaid. The notion of splitting up gross national product into the constituent contributions made by individual sectors of the economy carries persistent appeal despite the fact that the finalgoods and services produced by many industries never actually enter the physical flow of GNP. It has motivated recent efforts by the Office of Business Economics at the Department of Commerce to construct a set of accounts showing measures of the physical volume of the gross national product originating in the various industries of the Nation, which in principle aggregate to the physical volume of obtained by deflating final expenditures.' This appeal is, of course, buttressed by the same conventions against double-counting that underlie the current dollar GNP concept. Paralleling the concern with the total economy's capacity to produce 'goods and services to satisfy final demand, there is an abiding reluctance to attribute the results of the application of factor services at all the preceding production stages to that activity which happens to come last in the sequence of fabrication. Hesitancy on thispoint is reinforced by the 'knowledge that the degree of integration varies among industries at any moment in time, as well as over the course of time within individual industries. Given variations of the latter kind, a disinclination to accept the movements of an actual physical series as an indication of the contribution made to GNP by the industry in auestion is thoroughlv reasonable. What is wanted is a measure which excludes the contribution made to the given industry's physical by inputs purchased from other industries. A measure of real net output in that sense would be entirely meaningful. Having reaffirmed the usefulness of the theoretical notion of net commodity output, it is all the more necessary to acknowledge that during an earlier exercise in conceptual tub cleaning undertaken by the writer,2 the proverbial baby seemed to slip out along with the bath water. On that occasion it was shown that the residual, or double-deflation approach to the ideal index of net output suggested by Fabricant and Geary leads to an unfamiliar and rather harrowing index number problemone which manifests itself in the appearance of negative value added estimates.3 The index number problem in question will arise even in the absence of aggregation, because the relative product and materials prices pertaining to a given industry at a specified date reflect a particular technological nexus (between the quantity of input and output) which need not be appropriate to the production conditions prevailing at some other date. Eschewing resort to the Fabricant-Geary formula, and all the difficulties of interpretation associated with the index numbers it