Yet in 2010 liquidationist arguments no different from those of Schumpeter (or Hayek) suddenly regained prominence.
Schumpeter has made an important contribution in his emphasis on this too much neglected point.
None of this causation is brought into Schumpeter's conspectus picture.
Schumpeter seems to rise to a higher conspectus picture, which, in form, avoids the circle.
Kaufkraft, as Schumpeter uses the term, is not derived from marginal utility, but is an abstraction from the idea of money.
The scheme of Schumpeter has simply no bearing at all on this vital point.
Schumpeter, however, does lip service still to the need for a psychological explanation.
In Schumpeter's view, the division between statics and dynamics is much more than methodological.
The first non-mathematical exposition of the doctrine, so far as I know, is by Schumpeter.
As we have seen, Schumpeter's schema has no bearing whatever on the explanation of demand, or on causation of any sort.