Talk:G. L. S. Shackle

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://homepage.newschool.edu/het/profiles/shackle.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"he has been described as drawing "Keynesian conclusions from Austrian premises.""
It seems to me that this is an extremely contentious interpretation of Shackle's work. The only area of Austrian theory that remotely interested Shackle was Bohm-Bawerk's capital theory. Apart from that Shackle's work was wholly and consciously derived from Keynes. This is particularly shown in the fact that he rejects the time preference theory of the interest rate and thus, implicitly, the idea of a "natural rate of interest" and instead endorses Keynes' liquidity preference theory of the interest rate.

I note that the quote that Shackle supposedly arrived at "Keynesian conclusions from Austrian premises" is not cited. Can we get a citation on this and make clear that this is a contentious view? Otherwise I think this passage should be removed.

O5o7 (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on G. L. S. Shackle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223155653/http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/shackle.htm to http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/shackle.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

"High Theory" in economics
I read the term "high theory" in something I'd Googled up, and having survived 72 years without taking note of it, searched for it w/ G-search & the other obvious Web tool, finding nothing as tantalizing as GLSS's use of it, IIRC in an opening-chapter's title. (Google his name and "high theory".) 'He', it seems, found it transparently clear, and I think I've established that, for me, it is not. Thots? --  Jerzy•t 08:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)