Maria Cristina Marcuzzo

The Collaboration between J. M. Keynes and R. F. Kahn from the Treatise to the General Theory

Of all the economists in John Maynard Keynes’s circle, Richard Kahn was perhaps closer to him than any other when he was working on the General Theory. However, the precise contribution he made to the development of the ideas that were to become the General Theory is still much debated. On the one hand we have Donald Moggridge (1994, 109; 1992, 532 n), who argues that in subsequent reconstructions Kahn credited himself and the “Circus” with a decisive role in the evolution of Keynes’s theory, although the writings offer no evidence or documentation to support the claim. On the other hand we have Joseph Schumpeter (1954, 1172), who saw the collaboration with Kahn as something very close to “coauthorship,” while Roy Harrod (1951, 451) described Kahn as Keynes’s “main pillar support” in the work on the book. Most interpretations have tended to place considerable stress on the difficulty of assessing the exact nature of the collaboration between

Speculation In Commodities: Keynes’ “Practical Acquaintance” With Futures Markets

In this paper we address the subject of Keynes as a speculator. We look first at the primary sources of information, which are in the form of unpublished letters and broker’s statements. Secondly, we look at the theory Keynes sparingly presented in his writings, but which nevertheless is grounded on his first-hand knowledge of speculative behavior. Thirdly, we examine the focus on speculation in commodities, which had great weight in his portfolio, and have chosen a particular commodity -wheat- for our investigation. In particular, we examine some of Keynes’s dealings in wheat futures with the aim of shedding light on the underlying investment strategy .

Cambridge as a place in economics

Cambridge as a geographical reference often crops up in the characterisation of the economic theories and approaches that developed in Cambridge (UK) between the 1920s and the 1960s with the contribution of economists who did not always share the same interests, background or attitudes, but who all lived and worked – for considerable periods of time – in that particular corner of the world. In order to reconstruct the Cambridge of those years and explore the space it represented for economics we have selected a group of economists and a span of time – essentially between the two wars, with a few encroachments in the years following on the death of Keynes. Cambridge was not only a place, but also a play of magnetic forces, drawing together and driving apart, where ideas emerged from an environment formed through intense human and professional relations, a well defined cultural tradition and a way of its own of organising work and study. We present the dramatis personae and the background to their actions, and consider the characteristics of intellectual and personal communication on the basis of which we are led to define the Cambridge economists examined more as a `group than a school.

Speculation and buffer stocks: The legacy of Keynes and Kahn

Abstract We review Keyness constant concern with commodity prices, both as speculator and as theorist, arguing that it was never divorced from his view on market instability. We also look at Kahns contribution on buffer stocks, which brought to fruition the original intuition by Keynes, refining it with his usual attention to the finest details. Finally, we will draw some general considerations on the relevance of the proposals of stabilization of commodity prices, based on buffer stocks, in the present sentiment of ‘a return to Keynes’ in the attempt to cope with possibly the worst global economic crisis since the 1930s.

Profitability in the International Gold Market in the Early History of the Gold Standard

By looking at the available evidence on the London gold market in the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century, this p aper presents a new formulation of the gold points and models the mar ket behavior behind gold movements. While there is evidence that the merchants behavior sustained the purchasing power parity of gold in terms of currency, there is none to support the view that gold flows realized the purchasing power parity of gold in terms of traded commo dities. Therefore, the equilibrium condition imposed by both the mone tary approach and the price-specie-flow mechanism seems unnecessarily restrictive. Copyright 1987 by The Review of Economic Studies Limited.

Economists in Cambridge : a study through their correspondence, 1907-1946

The University of Cambridge has produced more Nobel Prize-winning economists than the whole of France. This impressive book collects together largely unpublished correspondence from some of the twentieth centurys key figures including Keynes, Robinson, Hayek and Sraffa.

Piero Sraffa at the university of Cambridge

Abstract This paper reconstructs the academic figure of Sraffa at the University of Cambridge as it emerges from his papers, his correspondence with the economists with whom he had special relations, and the official documents of the University, in particular in connection with his role in the Faculty of Economics and Politics, to which he belonged from 1927 to 1965. It presents a detailed examination of the various posts held by Sraffa at the University as Lecturer, Assistant Director of Research, Member of the Degree Committee, Examiner, Member of the Faculty Board, as co-founder of The Department of Applied Economics, Elector to the Chairs of Political Economy, Industrial Relations and Economics, Member of Kings College and finally as Fellow of Trinity College. Moreover, the relationship with his fellow economists in Cambridge, in particular Keynes, Kahn, Kaldor and Joan Robinson is also examined and assessed. The broad conclusion of the paper is that Sraffas relationship with Cambridge University was complex, contradictory and intense, and should be seen within the broader context of the ambiguous relations Sraffa had with academia in general.

Cambridge School of Economics

Volume II contains entries on the major schools of economic thought and analysis. These schools differ with regard to their vision of the working of the economic system, the major forces and interactions that shape its path, and the policy recommendations proposed. At any moment of time, several such schools typically compete with one another, striving for dominance within the economic and political discourse. Each Handbook can be read individually and acts as a self-contained volume in its own right. It can be purchased separately or as part of a three-volume set.

A note on the notions of risk-premium and liquidity-premium in Hicks's and Keynes's analyses of the term structure of interest rates.

Abstract While in Hickss analysis there is the idea of a yield curve normally upward sloping, Keynes does not appear to envisage a systematic positive spread between long-term and short-term interest rates. This is mainly due a difference in their notions of liquidity, and in particular to Keyness disbelief in the possibility of quantifying the premium required to induce investors to hold long-term rather than short-term assets. It follows that Hickss and Keyness explanations of the term structure are neither identical nor can be assimilated to the notion of ‘preferred habitat’, as suggested in some literature.

ON THE NOTION OF PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY CAUSES: THE LEGACY OF RICARDO

This paper considers the distinction made by David Ricardo between “permanent†and “temporary†causes, which he sometimes refers to also as “stable†and “accidental†causes (see The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo [hereinafter Works] I: 86, 88, 92; VI: 154), to derive implications useful to distinguish his approach from subsequent developments of the notions of short-period and long-period equilibrium. In particular, I trace the change of focus in the concept of “permanent†forces brought about by Alfred Marshall—from whose insights Alfred Kahn and John Maynard Keynes drew inspiration for their short-period analysis—which paved the way to fundamental changes in the method and theory.It is argued that Ricardo’s distinction maintains an heuristic value, in particular vis-A -vis the distinction between short and long period, which is part of the common language in standard economics.