2009•Cambridge Journal of EconomicsRequires access

The loanable funds fallacy: saving, finance and equilibrium

M. G. Hayes

Open publisher page 15 citations

Abstract

The loanable funds controversy cannot be settled without prior agreement on the meanings of income and equilibrium. The essential claim of loanable funds theory is that disequilibrium in the goods market affects the rate of interest. This paper introduces financial accounting concepts and a new understanding of the principle of effective demand to clarify that loanable funds theory relies on a concept of income other than current income, namely yesterday's income in the case of Robertson, or full-employment equilibrium income in the case of Hicks. In Robertson's case, this is a matter of bad accounting, a confusion between an income statement and a balance sheet. In Hicks's more subtle case, it is about the inapplicability of Walras’ Law to a monetary economy. Keynes's principle embodies a Marshallian concept of system equilibrium under which the goods market is treated as never in disequilibrium in the sense required by loanable funds theory.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The loanable funds controversy cannot be settled without prior agreement on the meanings of income and equilibrium. The essential claim of loanable funds theory is that disequilibrium in the goods market affects the rate of interest. This paper introduces financial accounting concepts and a new understanding of the principle of effective demand to clarify that loanable funds theory relies on a concept of income other than current income, namely yesterday's income in the case of Robertson, or full-employment equilibrium income in the case of Hicks. In Robertson's case, this is a matter of bad accounting, a confusion between an income statement and a balance sheet. In Hicks's more subtle case, it is about the inapplicability of Walras’ Law to a monetary economy. Keynes's principle embodies a Marshallian concept of system equilibrium under which the goods market is treated as never in disequilibrium in the sense required by loanable funds theory.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 15 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The loanable funds controversy cannot be settled without prior agreement on the meanings of income and equilibrium. The essential claim of loanable funds theory is that disequilibrium in the goods market affects the rate of interest. This paper introduces financial accounting concepts and a new understanding of the principle of effective demand to clarify that loanable funds theory relies on a concept of income other than current income, namely yesterday's income in the case of Robertson, or full-employment equilibrium income in the case of Hicks. In Robertson's case, this is a matter of bad accounting, a confusion between an income statement and a balance sheet. In Hicks's more subtle case, it is about the inapplicability of Walras’ Law to a monetary economy. Keynes's principle embodies a Marshallian concept of system equilibrium under which the goods market is treated as never in disequilibrium in the sense required by loanable funds theory.

Key concepts: Loanable funds, Economics, Fallacy, Disequilibrium, Keynesian economics, Neoclassical economics, Monetary economics, General equilibrium theory

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The loanable funds fallacy: saving, finance and equilibrium — Research Paper | ScholarLens