<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Economics Questions</title><link>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/5.aspx</link><description /><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2008.5 SP2 (Build: 40407.4157)</generator><item><title>Re: How would a mainstream economist justify the marginal propensity to consume/save?</title><link>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/380036.aspx</link><pubDate>Sat, 20 Nov 2010 21:51:42 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">944abf2b-d1be-4bf2-990d-438cb0e377e9:380036</guid><dc:creator>resist272727</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/380036.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/commentrss.aspx?SectionID=5&amp;PostID=380036</wfw:commentRss><description>&lt;p&gt;
	There&amp;#39;s not really any proof necessary.&amp;nbsp; It&amp;#39;s a statistic.&amp;nbsp; And the evidence that MPC&amp;gt;MPS is derived from statistics.&amp;nbsp; If someone makes a claim that MPC need be higher (namely Keynes)&amp;nbsp;then they do need evidence.&amp;nbsp; And they would not find this evidence in the statistics because MPC was greater than 1 for almost all of 1987 to 2007 and what did we get out of it?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	As for the multiplier, it&amp;#39;s main problem IMO is that it only works as the velocity of money approaches infinity, when on average the velocity of money is from 1.6 to 2.&amp;nbsp; That&amp;#39;s why we get sub-1 multipliers and also why the &amp;quot;stimulus&amp;quot; didn&amp;#39;t save the economy.&amp;nbsp; Once again, only my opinion.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>How would a mainstream economist justify the marginal propensity to consume/save?</title><link>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/380032.aspx</link><pubDate>Sat, 20 Nov 2010 20:54:11 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">944abf2b-d1be-4bf2-990d-438cb0e377e9:380032</guid><dc:creator>fakename</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/380032.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/commentrss.aspx?SectionID=5&amp;PostID=380032</wfw:commentRss><description>&lt;p&gt;
	Basically what proof is there of a propensity to either consume or save? And what evidence is there of the latter being less than the former? I heard a rothbard talk on this where he says that the statistics are basically correlations of themselves but is statistics the only evidence period, of these propensities?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	Also, does the circular flow model have a problem namely, that if everyone&amp;#39;s income is someone else&amp;#39;s spending, then it is impossible to increase output since all that happens is a redistribution of income in the model?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	Does the multiplier get out of this difficulty and if it does, does it do so adequately in your opinions?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	Thanks&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>