who is interested in Economy ? help me ![:D]

In economics, the "Keynesian" perspective has a longer history than the "Hayekian" one precisely because so many of the early economists, from Turgot (1766) onwards, concentrated on circulating capital rather than fixed capital. With circulating capital, the question of the "optimal capital stock" cannot come up; there is only the "optimal investment" decision (i.e. capital per period). The first theory of investment we consider here, Irving Fisher''s (1930) theory, follows these lines. Fisher''s theory was originally conceived as a theory of capital, but as he assumes all capital is circulating, then it is just as proper to conceive of it as a theory of investment.
John Maynard Keynes (1936) followed suit. Or, rather, in his theory, Keynes made much of the investment decision but was quiet about the underlying fixed capital. As such, Keynesian macroeconomics swept the issue of the changing capital stocks under the rug -- where it stayed until it was dug up by growth theorists many years later. Modern Neo-Keynesian and Post Keynesian theorists have attempted to insert capital stocks into Keynesian theory in order to obtain a "more complete" macroeconomic theory, but have generally adhered to Keynes''s strategy of placing the investment decision as the centrepiece and subordinating capital stock considerations to it.
Fixed capital, and thus the optimal capital stock, was an important feature in the work of John Bates Clark (1899), Frank Ramsey (1928) and Frank H. Knight (1936, 1946). Or, propertly speaking, these theorists embraced the idea of a "permanent fund" of capital in the economy, and thus were naturally led to ask questions about its optimal "size". This was effectively what Neoclassical theorists such as Dale W. Jorgensen (1963) picked up in their theories. However, while elaborate on the determination of the optimal capital stock, these theories tended to skimp on the determination of the adjustment towards it, i.e. on investment.
Right decision, to be true to myself, and FOREVER HATE YOU!

The great intermediate figure was Friedrich A. von Hayek (1941), who juggled with the concepts of fixed and circulating capital by conceiving of an optimal stock of fixed capital and of investment as the optimal adjustment towards it (an idea that Knut Wicksell (1898, 1901) had also toyed with). This was the notion picked up in later years by Abba Lerner (1944, 1953), Friedrich Lutz and Vera Lutz  (1951), Trygve Haavelmo (1960) and the marginal adjustment cost theorists (Eisner and Strotz, Lucas, Treadway, Gould, etc.) The modern Neoclassical theory of investment stems largely from this tra***ion.
In what follows, we shall go through a few points in each of these types of theories. We should point out now that our emphasis in on theories of the investment decision, in its more "production"-theoretic sense rather than a macroeconomic one. We are not concerned here with the theory of interest rates, in which investment theory plays an important role, as that would entangle us in the details of the monetary theories of Wicksell, Robertson, Ohlin, Hayek, Keynes and others. We treat this elsewhere.
There is no comprehensive text on investment theory. The following treatises, however, contain good surveys of substantial areas of investment theory: Friedrich Lutz and Vera Lutz (1951), Trygve Haavelmo (1960), Jack Hirschleifer (1970), Andrew Abel (1979) and Mark Precious (1987). Also recommended is the collection e***ed by Paul Davidson (1993).
Right decision, to be true to myself, and FOREVER HATE YOU!

again, I would say, my apology put forth, none in this box would be interested in these writings. Economics is something you have to learn about and the knowledge of which you have to build up gradually if not slowly. These writings, put forward in your fashion, provide little other than a chaotic mix of economic basics and names of a bunch of economists plus fancy terms of the "-isms."
I am certainly not trying to offend you. rather I think I would like to counsel you against doing all this, quite wasteful of your time and providing little for others.
also, kindly provide the source(s) if you will.

Tiền bất kiến cổ nhân
Hậu bất kiến lai giả
Niệm thiên địa chi du du
Độc sảng nhiên nhi lệ hạ

ôi, ****, ông đã nhìn số người đọc chưa mà ông nói là đ. có ai đọc? Tôi biết ông học Eco. and all those ****s, do vậy ông phải biết so sánh là thế nào chứ? Ông thử chọn ngẫu nhiên 10 msg. mới nhất, rồi xem cái nào được đọc nhiều nhất và cái nào ít nhất, vv.... rồi so sánh với cái tôi posted đó chứ!
Ít nhất là ngoài tui ra, còn có ông và bạn Williamthai đọc. Ông đã mở mắt nhìn rõ chưa? Tui cho rằng đây không phải là ý kiến góp ý xây dựng của ông, mà hình như ông có thành kiến nặng nề với tui thì phải. Có gì thì ông mail vào captor_of_sin1985@yahoo.com của tui mà chửi, chửi thoái mái, tôi accept hết. Accept all the **** you take out on me!
Right decision, to be true to myself, and FOREVER HATE YOU!

I don''''t know whether Ms/mr Logatum was effected by boom in Irad or your manner is actually boastful person .You always criticizes the others while none of your posts are considered are valuable.At least you have to show that you have some economical knowledge or you are intereted in economic.Otherwise, Whoever you are, but in our mind, you are just a boaster.
Allright Capter_of_sin. Now we give Longatum a chance to perform himself by the theory of Customer Choice.
This is my question.
Since 1960, real income has increased tremendously, yet the average number of children per family has decreased. Con sider the following possible explanations, and Illustrate in terms of budget lines and indifference curves of families between number of children on the x-axis and "all other goods" on the y-aix.
a. Children are an inferior good;since we''''re richer now, we want fewer of them.
b. Children are not an inferior goods; however, it has becomes more expensive to bear and raise children.
c. Children are not an inferior goods;nor have they become relatively expensive. What has happened is that taste have changed; couples today want smaller families that couples did in 1900.
It ''''s not only for Longatum but also for who is intersted in Econ. I will post my answer later.
WelCome everybody !!!
Được britneybritney sửa chữa / chuyển vào 23:37 ngày 03/10/2003