Communication theory

Excess Present Value Index, Capital rationing, Cost of Capital

I. Introduction, 71. — II. Investment and profits, 73. — III. Flexible expectations, 79. — IV. Elastic expectations, 88. — V. Adaptiveness and flexibility combined, 91.

Journal Article “The Cost and Efficiency of Distribution in the Soviet Union”: Comment Get access Myron H. Ross Myron H. Ross Western Michigan University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 77, Issue 3, August 1963, Pages 503–504, https://doi.org/10.2307/1879575 Published: 01 August 1963

Interest in the short-run behavior of the demand for money has been stimulated in recent years notably by the studies of Professors Baumol, Tobin, and Friedman.1 Three issues which have been reopened by their studies will be discussed here. First, what factors influence the demand for money and changes in cash balances over short periods of time? Second, what is the role of interest rates in these short-term changes? Third, are there economies of scale in the holding of money balances? These questions are of some relevance for monetary theory and for discussions of the impact and utility of discretionary monetary policy.

Introduction, 40. — I. Shaw's policies and the economy (1902–07), 41. — II. Shaw's critics, 47. <qd> The Treasury has always been the bloody angle of criticism of an administration.1 </qd>

PROFESSOR EISNER'S attempt to revive the liquidity takes the form of five objections to the findings reported by Bronfenbrenner and Mayer.2 In this note I will direct my discussion to the question of evidence for the trap and comment only briefly on other points which Eisner raises. The main burden of my argument is that evidence for or against the liquidity must rest on a demand function for money which explains more than the period surrounding the supposed trap. The post-1 920 data alone are inadequate to support (or reject) the hypothesis. For it has long been known that long-term bond yields peaked in the U.S. in 1920-21 and thereafter declined. A similar movement is shown by velocity. At issue are two questions: (1) whether the data for the 1930's and 1940's show a movement of two variables which are related or a co-movement of two variables each of which declined for any one of a number of other reasons,3 and (2) if the variables are related, do they show evidence of a trap?