Buy Used
+ $3.99 shipping
Used: Good | Details
Condition: Used: Good
Comment: We are committed to providing each customer with the highest standard of customer service. All books are picked, packed and dispatched from the United Kingdom.
Have one to sell? Sell on Amazon
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

Treasury and British Economic Policy (Studies in Economic & Social History) Paperback – February 23, 1988

1 customer review

See all formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price New from Used from
"Please retry"

Best Books of the Month
Best Books of the Month
Want to know our Editors' picks for the best books of the month? Browse Best Books of the Month, featuring our favorite new books in more than a dozen categories.

Product Details

  • Series: Studies in Economic & Social History
  • Paperback: 72 pages
  • Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan (February 23, 1988)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0333362721
  • ISBN-13: 978-0333362723
  • Shipping Weight: 4.3 ounces
  • Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #8,227,070 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star
See the customer review
Share your thoughts with other customers

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

Format: Paperback
Peden presents an interesting reassessment of the British Treasury dispute with Keynes, in the years 1924-1944,over the nature and impact of government infrastructure spending.A major supporter of the treasury view was Ralph Hawtrey.This view held that any increase in government investment spending would automatically result ina decrease in private investment spending.Public investment spending would always crowd out private investment spending so that the net impact on the economy was zero.There could be no multiplier effect since the positive increase in government investment exactly equalled the negative decrease in private investment spending.The Treasury view was based on the misconception that the economy was always operating on the boundary of the static and dynamic Production Possibilities Frontier(PPF) curve at maximum output and full employment.The argument is nonsensical if the economy is operating significantly inside the boundary in the interior of either the static or dynamic PPF curves.There will always be large inactive balances that the government can borrow from private consumers and businessmen, that are not being used due to both severe pessimism and a lack of confidence about existing business opportunities,in order to fund infrastructure projects that will actually pay for themselves in the long run since the private sector needs up to date,efficient communications,transportation,and public utilities(water,electricity garbage disposal)in order to optimize their own private production plans.Read more ›
6 Comments Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again