±¹¹® ÃÊ·Ï
º»°í´Â ÄÉÀÎÁî ÈÆóÀ̷п¡¼ ³»»ý¼ºÀ» °Á¶ÇÏ´Â Æ÷½ºÆ® ÄÉÀÎÁö¾ÈÀÇ ÇØ¼®ÀÌ ÄÉÀÎÁî ü°è¿¡ ¿ÀÈ÷·Á ÇØ°¡ µÇ¸ç ³»»ýÈÆó·ÐÀÌ ÄÉÀÎÁî/Æ÷½ºÆ®ÄÉÀÎÁö¾ÈÀ» ´Ù¸¥ ÇÐÆÄ¿Í ±¸ºÐÇÏ´Â ÇÙ½ÉÀû ±âÁØÀÌ µÇÁö ¸øÇÔÀ» ÁöÀûÇϰí ÀÖ´Ù. ÀÌ·± ÁÖÀåÀ» µÞ¹ÞħÇϱâ À§ÇØ ´ÙÀ½ÀÇ ¼¼ °¡Áö¸¦ ³íÀÇÇÏ¿´´Ù. ù°, ÈÆó¼ö¿ä¿¡ µû¶ó ÈÆó·®ÀÌ º¯ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó´Â ÁÖÀåÀ» ÄÉÀÎÁîÀÇ ÁÖ¿ä ÀúÀÛ¿¡¼ È®ÀÎÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ...
[´õº¸±â]
º»°í´Â ÄÉÀÎÁî ÈÆóÀ̷п¡¼ ³»»ý¼ºÀ» °Á¶ÇÏ´Â Æ÷½ºÆ® ÄÉÀÎÁö¾ÈÀÇ ÇØ¼®ÀÌ ÄÉÀÎÁî ü°è¿¡ ¿ÀÈ÷·Á ÇØ°¡ µÇ¸ç ³»»ýÈÆó·ÐÀÌ ÄÉÀÎÁî/Æ÷½ºÆ®ÄÉÀÎÁö¾ÈÀ» ´Ù¸¥ ÇÐÆÄ¿Í ±¸ºÐÇÏ´Â ÇÙ½ÉÀû ±âÁØÀÌ µÇÁö ¸øÇÔÀ» ÁöÀûÇϰí ÀÖ´Ù. ÀÌ·± ÁÖÀåÀ» µÞ¹ÞħÇϱâ À§ÇØ ´ÙÀ½ÀÇ ¼¼ °¡Áö¸¦ ³íÀÇÇÏ¿´´Ù. ù°, ÈÆó¼ö¿ä¿¡ µû¶ó ÈÆó·®ÀÌ º¯ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó´Â ÁÖÀåÀ» ÄÉÀÎÁîÀÇ ÁÖ¿ä ÀúÀÛ¿¡¼ È®ÀÎÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. ÀÌ´Â ÈÆó·®ÀÌ ÈÆó¼ö¿ä¿¡ ÀÇÇØ °áÁ¤µÈ´Ù´Â ÈÆó³»»ý¼ºÀÇ ±âº»°³³ä°ú »ó¹ÝµÇ´Â ÁÖÀåÀÌ´Ù. µÑ° 20¼¼±â ÃÊ ÈÆóÀ̷п¡¼´Â ÈÆó³»»ý¼ºÀÌ º¸ÆíÀûÀ¸·Î µîÀåÇϰí Àֱ⠶§¹®¿¡ À̸¦ ÄÉÀÎÁÀÇ Æ¯Â¡À̶ó°í º¸±â ¾î·Á¿ì¸ç ¿ÀÈ÷·Á Æ÷½ºÆ®ÄÉÀÎÁö¾È°ú »ó¹ÝµÇ´Â ÀÔÀåÀ» °¡Áø ÇÏÀÌ¿¡Å©¿¡¼ ³»»ý¼ºÀº °¡Àå °Á¶µÇ°í ÀÖÀ½À» ¼¼úÇÏ¿´´Ù. µû¶ó¼ ³»»ý¼ºÀÌ ÄÉÀÎÁî/Æ÷½ºÆ® ÄÉÀÎÁö¾ÈÀ» ´Ù¸¥ ³íÀÚµé°ú ±¸ºÐÇÏ´Â ÇÙ½ÉÀû ±âÁØÀÌ µÇ±â´Â ¾î·Æ´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ Æ÷½ºÆ® ÄÉÀÎÁö¾ÈÀÌ °ÅºÎÇÏ´Â ¡®½Ç¹°ºÐ¼®¡¯¿¡¼µµ ³»»ý¼ºÀº Áß¿äÇÑ ¿ªÇÒÀ» Çϰí ÀÖ´Ù. ¼Â° ³»»ý¼ºÀ» °Á¶ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº À¯µ¿¼º¼±È£À̷аú ´ëºÎÀÚ±ÝÀÌ·ÐÀÇ ´ë¸³±¸µµ¿¡¼ ÄÉÀÎÁ ¹æ¾îÇÏ´Â ¼ö´ÜÀÌ µÇÁö ¸øÇÔÀ» ÁöÀûÇß´Ù. ¿Ö³ÄÇÏ¸é ´ëºÎÀÚ±ÝÀ̷п¡µµ ÈÆó³»»ý¼ºÀÇ ¿ä¼Ò°¡ ´ã°Ü Àֱ⠶§¹®ÀÌ´Ù. ³»»ý¼ºÀ» °Á¶ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº À¯µ¿¼º¼±È£ÀÌ·ÐÀÌ ´ëºÎÀÚ±ÝÀ̷аú º»ÁúÀûÀ¸·Î ´Ù¸¥ ÀÌ·ÐÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó´Â ´ëºÎÀڱݷÐÀÚµéÀÇ ÁÖÀåÀ» µû¶ó°¡´Â °ÍÀÌ µÈ´Ù.
[´Ý±â]
¿µ¹® ÃÊ·Ï
This paper argues that Post-Keynesian endogenous money theory does nor make any contribution to the defense of Keynes' theory, and that endogenous money theory does not differentiate Keynes/Post-Keyne...
[´õº¸±â]
This paper argues that Post-Keynesian endogenous money theory does nor make any contribution to the defense of Keynes' theory, and that endogenous money theory does not differentiate Keynes/Post-Keynesian from orthodox Neoclassicals. Three grounds of this argument are presented. First, in Keynes' main works, we find our his argument that the quantity of money is not determined by money demand of the public. His argument conflicts with endogenous money theory wherein the quantity of money is determined by money demand. Second, at the beginning of the rwentierh cenrury, the endogenous money hypothesis was simply ubiquitous in most theories of money. So, we cannot regard endogenous money as a defining characteristic of Keynes and Post-Keynesian. It is in Hayekian theoty of money as opposed to Keynes' money theory that endogenous money plays a prominent role. The irony is that Post-Keynesian theory is, in many respects, incompatible with Hayekian theory. Moreover, it should be noted that so-called 'Real Analysis' which Post-Keynesian criticize involves endogenous money theory. Third, in the debate of Liquidity Preference vs. Loanable Fund, endogenous money does not play any role in defense of Keynes. Given that Loanable Fund theory is closely related to endogenous money, placing emphasis on endogenous money is tantamount to accepting Loanable Fund theorists' argument that Liquidity Preference is not an alternative theory of the rate of interest.
[´Ý±â]
¸ñÂ÷
±¹¹®ÃÊ·Ï
¥°. ¼·Ð
¥±. ÅðÀå·®°ú ÅðÀ强ÇâÀÇ ±¸ºÐ
¥². ÀúÃà - ÅõÀÚÁ¢±Ù¹ý°ú ÈÆó³»»ý¼º
¥³. ´ëºÎÀÚ±ÝÀ̷аú ÈÆó³»»ý¼º
¥´. ¸ÎÀ½¸»
Âü°í¹®Çå
ABSTRACT