From the Trade Cycle to the ‘Essay’, 1935–39
I agree that your sense of the word dynamic is the most natural one to start with (though I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the Hicksian stuff ‘isn’t dynamics at all’). I believe Marshall’s system to be dynamic in your sense (see Principles, V.5. para. 3); also Cassel’s Theory of Social Economy (1st English translation, vol. I, para. 6, p. 149 etc.). But how far, once one departs from the simplest assumption of steady progress, there is a hope of discovering the laws of such a system, I do not know. The multiplier seems to me wobbly enough as a short answer. But the principle of acceleration is worse. I am not optimistic about the claims of Economics to be a real science.1
KeywordsDepression Income Explosive Expense Librium
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.