http://burnsblog.umwblogs.org It's All About ME Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:35:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 http://burnsblog.umwblogs.org/2007/12/01/ethnodevelopment-literature-review-notes/#comment-803 participatory monitoring evaluation indicators Tue, 20 May 2008 13:16:13 +0000 http://burnsblog.umwblogs.org/2007/12/01/ethnodevelopment-literature-review-notes/#comment-803 [...] [...] [...] [...]

]]> http://burnsblog.umwblogs.org/2008/04/26/agreeing-on-a-core-of-practical-macro/#comment-772 aggregate tests Thu, 15 May 2008 07:04:05 +0000 http://burnsblog.umwblogs.org/2008/04/26/agreeing-on-a-core-of-practical-macro/#comment-772 [...] [...] [...] [...]

]]> http://burnsblog.umwblogs.org/2008/01/18/the-neoclassical-theory-of-money-interest-and-prices/#comment-52 joeberger Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:13:24 +0000 http://burnsblog.umwblogs.org/2008/01/18/the-neoclassical-theory-of-money-interest-and-prices/#comment-52 If i read it correctly, Wicksell was trying to illustrate an instance where the Gibson paradox did not hold true. He was saying that interest rates and price levels do not always have to move in the same direction because at some point, banks can no long issue loans and must use the interest in order to curb inflation. I think he was trying to show that raising the interest rate would lower price levels and therefore the Gibson paradox could not completely discredit monetary theory. This was an excellent refresher on quantity theory. I was unaware that classical economists believed that while the money supply can affect the economy in the short-run, over the long-run the "neutrality of money" would hinder the money supply from impacting real output and employment. If i read it correctly, Wicksell was trying to illustrate an instance where the Gibson paradox did not hold true. He was saying that interest rates and price levels do not always have to move in the same direction because at some point, banks can no long issue loans and must use the interest in order to curb inflation. I think he was trying to show that raising the interest rate would lower price levels and therefore the Gibson paradox could not completely discredit monetary theory. This was an excellent refresher on quantity theory. I was unaware that classical economists believed that while the money supply can affect the economy in the short-run, over the long-run the “neutrality of money” would hinder the money supply from impacting real output and employment.

]]> http://burnsblog.umwblogs.org/2007/09/10/hello-world/#comment-2 GREGORY Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:22:25 +0000 #comment-2 I thought those were pretty clearly paint swatches. If I could downvote your comment, I totally would. That is SUCH a +1 post. I thought those were pretty clearly paint swatches. If I could downvote your comment, I totally would. That is SUCH a +1 post.

]]> http://burnsblog.umwblogs.org/2007/09/10/hello-world/#comment-1 Adoring Fan (me incognito) Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:31:31 +0000 #comment-1 Way to go, Burns! I liked your insightful thoughts on not having thoughts. But I must ask, are those paint swatches? Way to go, Burns! I liked your insightful thoughts on not having thoughts. But I must ask, are those paint swatches?

]]>