IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Uncertainty and money: Keynes, Tobin and Kahn and the disappearance of the precautionary demand for money from liquidity preference theory

Listed author(s):
  • Fernando J. Cardim de Carvalho

Keynes answered to critics of the General Theory, in 1937, that they failed to realize that there were two main innovations in that work. The first, was the relationship between money demand and uncertainty; the second was the consumption multiplier. The relation between money demand and uncertainty was in fact the main reason to explain why aggregate demand could fall short of full employment income. However, this was explained by Keynes in 1937 by recourse to a form of precautionary demand for money. In The GT, Keynes had actually merged the precautionary demand into the transactions demand for money, making it very difficult for any reader, friendly or unfriendly, to actually see what he meant in 1937. As a result, Keynes liquidity preference theory of the interest rate in the GT exhibited some important shortcomings that were the subject of many reexaminations, including one by Richard Kahn and another by James Tobin. The paper evaluates Keynes's views, Kahn's and Tobin's solutions to Keynes's dilemmas. At its conclusion it is shown why these themes remain relevant today, particularly when financial systems are in turmoil. Copyright The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political Economy Society. All rights reserved., Oxford University Press.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Oxford University Press in its journal Cambridge Journal of Economics.

Volume (Year): 34 (2010)
Issue (Month): 4 ()
Pages: 709-725

in new window

Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:34:y:2010:i:4:p:709-725
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK

Fax: 01865 267 985
Web page:

Order Information: Web:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:34:y:2010:i:4:p:709-725. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press)

or (Christopher F. Baum)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.