Abstract
This paper centers on Keynes' theory of money and his attack on the classical model. Keynes criticized the self-correcting model of the British orthodoxy along two separate lines. In the first, in which Keynes' theory of money was crucial, he took the institutional variables as given and examined the functional relationships. Keynes' burden was to undermine what he termed the "classical dichotomy," where money was a veil, playing no role in determining output and employment. Two key features of the orthodox model were loanable funds and quantity theories, and Keynes' theory of money emerged from the rejection of these theories. The key to his attack on the classical dichotomy was the speculative demand for money, which he presented as an indirect, unstable function of the interest rate. Hence, Keynes linked money demand to the interest rate. The interest rate was thus determined by monetary variables rather than real factors, contrary to British orthodox opinion. Keynes then demonstrated that intended investment and saving need not be equal at a full employment equilibrium.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ackley, Gardner.Macroeconomic Theory and Policy, New York, NY: Macmillan, 1978.
Baumol, William, J. "The Transactions Demand for Cash: An Inventory Theoretic Approach,"Quarterly Journal of Economics, November 1952.
Cate, Thomas. "Keynes and Probability," in Thomas Cate, ed.,An Encyclopedia of Keynesian Economics, Cheltenhan, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar, 1997.
Cate, Thomas; Johnson, L. E. "Key Elements of the Economics of Keynes and of His Revolution," in Thomas Cate, ed.,An Encyclopedia of Keynesian Economics, Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar, 1997.
__. "The Theory of Probability: A Key Element in Keynes' Revolution,"International Advances in Economic Research, 4, 4, November 1998.
De Vecchi, Nicolo.Entrepreneurs, Institutions, and Economic Change: The Economic Thought of J. A. Schumpeter (1905–1925), Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar, 1995.
Johnson, L. E.; Cate, Thomas. "The Analytical Preconditions for Keynes' Theory of Money,"International Advances in Economic Research, 6, 1, February 2000.
Johnson, L. E.; Ley, Robert D.Origins of Modern Economics: A Paradigmatic Approach, Lexington, MA: Ginn Press, 1990.
Johnson, L. E.; Ley, Robert D.; Cate, Thomas. "Quantity Theory of Money," in Thomas Cate, ed.,An Encyclopedia of Keynesian Economics, Cheltenham, United Kingdom, Edward Elgar, 1997.
Keynes, John Maynard.A Treatise on Probability, London, United Kingdom: Macmillan, 1921.
__.A Tract on Monetary Reform, London, United Kingdom: Macmillan, 1921.
__.A Tract on Monetary Reform, London, United Kingdom: Macmillan, 1924.
__.A Treatise on Money, London, United Kingdom: Macmillan, 1930.
__.The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, London, United Kingdom: Macmillan, 1936.
__.Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes: Social, Political, and Literary Writings, XXVIII, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Ramsey, Frank P. "Mr. Keynes on Probability,"The Cambridge Magazine, 11, 1, January 1922, pp. 3–5.
__ "Truth and Probability," in R. B. Braithwaite, ed.,The Foundations of Mathematics, London, United Kingdom: Routledge, 1931.
Russell, Bertrand. "Review of J. M. Keynes' Treatises on Probability,"Mathematical Gazette, 6, 46, July 1922, pp. 199–225.
Schumpeter, Joseph A.History of Economic Analysis, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1950.
Tobin, James. "The Interest Elasticity of the Transactions Demand for Cash,"Review of Economics and Statistics, August 1956.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
A previous version of this paper was presented at the Fiftieth International Atlantic Economic Conference, October 15–18, 2000, Charleston, South Carolina. The authors are grateful to participants for their helpful suggestions. The authors are responsible for any remaining errors.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Johnson, L.E., Ley, R. & Cate, T. Keynes' theory of money and his attack on the classical model. International Advances in Economic Research 7, 409–418 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02295770
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02295770