Search

The article presents the argument that greater equality in the distribution of costs and rewards of development is demanded by the value system of the Filipino and by the development process itself. Important steps toward equality would be agrarian reform, educational reform, and tax reform. For these to be carried out there is need for organized pressure from below. There is need also for strong and efficient government, whether it will in the long run be democratic depends on the attention given to genuine education and human development at the broad base of society. The aspirations of the great majority of the people for a higher standard of material welfare are evident and reflected in many surveys. Per capita income figures demonstrate that the Philippines is a poor nation and that a reasonable level of material welfare cannot be provided by redistribution alone Economic development and accelerated economic development are absolutely necessary if the Philippines is to meet the rising demands of its constantly increasing population.

The article comments on the paper "Can Land Reform Succeed?," by B. de los Reyes. The activities of peasant organizations at this period also accelerated the progress of land reform Moreover, social confusion and widespread disturbances in the traditional value one nations of Japanese society also helped to minimize any counterblow by the landed class Most distinctive of the Japanese case, however, is the fact that expropriation and redistribution did not result in a heavy burden for either the government or the newly-created owner farmers. Except in those socialist countries which simply confiscate private property without compensation to its former owner, paying for expropriated land is the most serious hindrance to the implementation of land reform In the case of Japan, though the transfer of land was compensated for, the tremendous monetary inflation experienced in the late 1940s and early 1950s made the payments asked of new owners and the land bond issued by the government relatively light obligations. Under these conditions the land was rather confiscated than expropriated. In the late 1960s, in fact, the government made amends by appropriating additional compensation to the ex-landowners.

The article discusses the implementation of price regulation in the paper industry. The industry has several characteristics that tend to escalate the effects of price competition such as heavy investment in equipment and slow investment turnover, large actual or potential excess capacity, inelastic demand for the product and little differentiation of product in some branches. In addition, price competition is also intensified due to the inelasticity of demand for paper. Moreover, the economies of scale are very considerable in the industry, specifically in integrated mills producing the cheaper standard papers.

Discusses paper money issues in the American colonies from 1720 to 1774. Misinterpretation of the colonial monetary policies; Overview of the political background of British monetary policies in the colonies; Controversy over colonial practices during the period.

The article comments on the papers "Selective Credit Controls" by economist Donald Hodgman and "Financial Guidelines and Credit Controls," by economist Thomas Mayer. In both economist's research they present arguments against credit controls. It is explained that the general consensus among most economist is that credit controls contribute little to monetary restraint and are inefficient and undesirable means of influencing the allocation of credit in the economy. Several reasons are given to why credit controls have gained popularity.

In 1963 economists Milton Friedman and David Meiselman published a paper for the Commission on "Money and Credit," in which they attempt to test the relative predictive power of Keynesian and monetary theories of business fluctuations. Their methods and conclusions were sharply disputed in papers by scholars Donald Hester, Albert Ando and Franco Modigliani, and Michael DePrano and Thomas Mayer. The purpose is to review this controversy. The method is the simple one of first replicating the studies over the original sample periods and then examining the postsample performance of the competing equations. On a sociological level there can be little doubt that this controversy was and continues to be, enormously valuable. Many economists have been stimulated to work on the questions disputed by the monetarist and Keynesian combatants and it is probably correct to argue that two models of the U.S. economy are a direct outgrowth of the controversy. What has been missing from this continuing controversy, however, is an ex post evaluation of the earlier empirical work.

The article describes the colonial monetary standard in Massachusetts in the 1600s. It discusses the establishment of a commodity standard in 1640 and the official prices of commodities in Massachusetts during the 1600s. The article details the development of the paper-money standard in 1690. It comments on the topics covered by most recent studies of the monetary system of the American colonies. The establishment of a mint in Boston in 1652 is reported. By 1737 the price of silver had risen. In 1750, the Massachusetts Assembly restored specie payments. The article also considers the objections to the continuation of paper-money issues.

The article comments on the underlying theory and the conclusions on economic policy derived from the proposals by Professor Ragnar Frisch for a thorough study of balance of payments broken down by countries and currencies. Several countries, short of foreign exchange, balance their imports by state control at the amount available from exports and other sources; any increase in exports enables them to import more, any decrease in exports forces them to import less. In the U.S., on the other hand, the volume of imports is determined by private importers independently of the reserve position of the country; the total volume of imports is below the level determined by national income and relative prices, and no change of exports would influence the actual volume of imports. In these conditions, discrimination against imports from the U.S. will increase world trade.

The article comments on the articles of economists Peter Oppenheimer and Robert Mundell on the rise of gold prices. The author discusses his views on the recommendations for raising the price of gold and his opinion on the views of Mundell on the changes in the International Monetary Fund charter. He explains that an initiative from the U.S. and cooperation from South Africa are required for a rise in the price of gold. Several proposals of Mundell for an International Monetary Pool are also discussed.

This article discusses the effect on income of Phase II of the wage-price control program of the United States. Several discussants commented on the issue of income shares under the Phase II program. R. A. Gordon, William Branson, and others noted that, with productivity growing exceptionally fast because of the rapid cyclical expansion expected in the economy, profit margins would widen so much that some cost absorption by business would still permit the profit share to expand. Arthur Okun noted that Perry's neutrality was defined as the state of income shares that would prevail in the absence of the program and that the cyclical expansion of profit margins that we are experiencing would have occurred anyhow. Gardner Ackley argued that we did not know enough about what has happened to price-cost relations in recent years to take any strong position about what income shares should be. Therefore Perry's neutrality concept should not override the need to slow inflation, and some cost absorption was appropriate as a way to help accomplish this. James Duesenberry and Michael Posner felt that the most serious practical problem was not the question of existing income shares but rather delivering on the promise to slow prices noticeably. The trade unions are reluctant to accept wage controls because they have little faith that the inflation will slow down. Differing views were expressed on the use of profit margin ceilings in Phase II. Alan Greenspan pointed out that the application of the rules on the basis of the margins of individual firms would hold down overall prices and margins more than people thought.

Modern macroeconomic theories are customarily classified as either neoclassical or Keynesian. Neoclassical theories are those that assume that most markets are in equilibrium most of the time; in particular, they generally assume that the labor market is always in equilibrium. Keynesian theories are those that assume that many markets are in disequilibrium much of the time; in addition to the labor market, they generally assume that financial markets and markets for capital goods are often in disequilibrium, in this paper, we will be interested in the extent to which a theory assumes that markets are in equilibrium, rather than in the intellectual tradition of the theory, so we will classify theories as "equilibrium theories" or "disequilibrium theories." We will be interested in dynamic theories, which describe the development of prices, stocks, and flows of goods and services over time, rather than in static theories, which describe the impact of events such as a one-time change in tastes, technology, or government policy. One of the purposes of this paper is to develop an aggregate model of the development over time of an economy that includes money and that is in continual equilibrium in the sense described above. Such a model would help in the analysis of the properties of a competitive monetary economy, and would be a logical starting point for the analysis of such phenomena as unemployment and changes in the rate of inflation. Since most Keynesian models of the economy do not pretend to be equilibrium models, let us turn to the neoclassical models of economic growth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In traditional IS-LM analysis monetary policy affects GNP through changes in the money supply (and the resulting impact on "the" rate of interest and investment spending). At the same time, monetary economists have increasingly concerned themselves with the composition of bank portfolios and bank portfolio behavior. The Federal Reserve, also, has paid particular attention to the loan portfolio of commercial banks in its assessment of monetary ease or tightness. The question to which this paper is addressed is, what is the relative importance of bank portfolio composition and the money supply in evaluating the impact of monetary policy? in particular, does the relative importance of these two financial variables vary with how one views the channels through which monetary policy operates? To point up the question even further one may ask, does it matter in evaluating the impact of monetary policy whether an expansion (contraction) in money supply occurs through the banking system's purchase (sale) of securities from (to) the public or whether it increases (decreases) loans? We shall ask also whether it is important to distinguish between different types of loans. Although the ultimate solution to these questions lies in empirical tests, this paper attempts only to clarify the issues with respect to the prevailing theories as to how monetary policy affects real spending. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]