List of Transitive Verbs in English

This is a List of the most common Transitive Verbs in English.

Transitive Verbs in English from A to F

accept dazzle

acknowledge deceive

admit define

aggravate describe

answer destroy

ask discover

avoid distinguish

beat drag

bend dress

bless dunk

bother edify

break embarrassing

brush embrace

build enable

cancel encourage

capture entertain

carry execute

catch enlist

change fascinate

chase finish

chastise follow

clean flick

collect forget
 comfort freeze

contradict frighten

convert forgive me

crack furnish

Transitive Verbs in English from G to N

gather keep

grab key

grasp kill

grip kiss

grease knock

handle lag

hang lay

head lead

highlight lean

honor leave

hurry up lighten

hurt limit

help link

imitate load

impress sees it

indulge lower

insert maintain

interest marry

inspection massage

interrupt melt

intimidate mock
 involve munch

irritate murder

join notice

judge number

Transitive Verbs in English from G to W

offend strike

order surprise

page swallow

paralyze switch

persuade teach

petrify taste

pierce tickle

place tighten

por favor toast

poison transformation

possess tweak

prepare twist

promise turn

protect cough

purchase try

punch underestimate

puzzle understand

questions unlock

quit unload

raise use

reassure untie
 recognize upgrade

refill vacate

remind vilify

remove viplate

repel videotape

research wake up

delay want

ring warm

run wash

satisfy warn

scold watch

select widen

slap wear

smell win

soften wipe

specify wrack

spell wrap

spit wreck

spread weep

Examples of Transitive Verbs in English

1. He ate some bread : He ate some bread
2. He drove a car : He drove a car
3. They took the boxes
4. He stole the car : He stole the car
Transitive and Intransitive Verbs in
English
Many verbs can be transitive and intransitive.

For example
sing
As you can see in this case, the verb sing in English can express the action that is exerted on an
object or not.

• Motivated by the others, she sang

• She sang the national anthem: She sang the national anthem
Leave
In this example, the verb leave has a double function since in the first sentence, leave means to
leave and in the second sentence leave means to leave something.

Savings Paradox
• Read in another language
•
• Look at this page
• Edit
The thrift paradox (or thrift paradox ) is
a paradox of economics . The paradox indicates that an increase in autonomous savings leads to a decrease in
aggregate demand and therefore a decrease in gross output which in turn will reduce total savings. The paradox is,
strictly speaking, that total savings can decrease due to individuals' attempts to increase their savings and,
generally speaking, that increased savings can be detrimental to an economy. [1] Both narrow and broad
statements are paradoxical in the assumption underlying the fallacy of composition , namely, that what is true of the
parts must be true of the whole. The narrow claim transparently contradicts this assumption, and the broader claim
does so by implication, because while individual saving is generally considered to be good for the economy, the
savings paradox holds that collective saving can be bad for the economy. .
It had been stated since 1714 in The Fable of the Bees , [2] and similar sentiments date back to antiquity. [3] [4] It
was popularized by John Maynard Keynes and is a central component of Keynesian economics . It has been part of
the general economy since the late 1940s.
Contents
The paradox

The argument begins from the observation that, in equilibrium, total income must equal total output. Assuming that
income has a direct effect on savings, an increase in the autonomous component of savings will, other things being
equal, move the equilibrium point at which income equals output to a lower value, thus inducing a decrease in
savings that can more than offset the original increase.
In this way, it represents a prisoner 's dilemma , since saving is beneficial to each individual but detrimental to the
general population. This is a "paradox" because it is counterintuitive. Someone who is not aware of the savings
paradox will fall into a fallacy of composition and assume that what appears to be good for one individual within the
economy will be good for the entire population. However, the exercise of saving can be good for an individual by
allowing him to save for a "rainy day" and yet not be good for the economy as a whole.
This paradox can be explained by analyzing the place and impact of increased savings in an economy. If a
population decides to save more money at all income levels, total income for businesses will decrease. This
decrease in demand causes a contraction in production, giving employers and employees lower incomes. Over
time, the population's total savings will remain the same or even decline due to lower incomes and a weaker
economy. This paradox is based on the proposition, espoused in Keynesian economics , that many economic
recessions are demand-driven.
History Edit
While the thrift paradox was popularized by Keynes, and is often attributed to him, [3] it was stated by many others
before Keynes, and the proposition that spending can help and saving can hurt an economy dates back to the
antiquity; Similar sentiments occur in the Bible verse:
It must disperse, and yet it increases; and you have to retain more than what is fulfilled,
but it tends to poverty.
• Proverbs 11:24
which has found occasional use as an epigram in subconsumerist writings. [3] [5] [6] [7]
Keynes himself notes the appearance of the paradox in Bernard Mandeville's The Fable of the Bees : or, Private
Vices, Publick Benefits (1714), the title itself alluding to the paradox, and Keynes quotes the passage: As this
prudent economy, which some people call Saving, is in private families the surest method of increasing
an estate, so that some imagine that, whether a country be barren or fruitful, the same method if
generally pursued (which they think is is feasible) have the same effect on an entire nation, and that, for
example, the English could be much richer than they are, if they were as frugal as some of their
neighbors. This, I believe, is a mistake.
Keynes suggests that Adam Smith was referring to this passage when he wrote "What is prudence in the conduct of
every private family may be folly in that of a great Kingdom."

The problem of underconsumption and oversaving, as they saw it, was developed by underconsumptionist
economists of the 19th century, and the paradox of savings in the strict sense that "collective attempts to save
general returns save general savings" was expressed explicitly by John M. Robertson. in his 1892 book The
Fallacy of
Saving, [3] [8] writing:
If the entire population had been willing to save, the total saved would have been much
less positive, to the extent that (other trends remain the same) industrial paralysis would
have been reached earlier or more frequently, profits would be lower, Interests would be
much lower and profits smaller and more precarious. This... is not an idle paradox, but
the strictest economic truth.
• John M. Robertson, The Fallacy of Savings, pp. 131–132
Similar ideas were conveyed by William Trufant Foster and Waddill Catchings in the 1920s in Thrift's Dilemma . [9]
Keynes distinguished between business activity/investment ("Enterprise") and savings ("Thrift") in his Treatise on
Money (1930):
...mere abstinence alone is not enough to build cities or drain swamps If the
Enterprise is underway, wealth accrues to whatever may be happening on Thrift; and if
Enterprise is asleep, wealth declines whatever Thrift is doing. Therefore, Thrift may be
Enterprise's handmaiden.
But she still can't. And, perhaps, even usually she is not.
and stated the paradox of savings in The General Theory , 1936: For although the amount of your own
savings is unlikely to have any significant influence on your own income, the reactions of
the amount of your consumption on the incomes of others make it impossible for all
individuals simultaneously save any given sum. Each attempt to save more by reducing
consumption will affect income in such a way that the attempt necessarily cancels itself.
Of course, it is just as impossible for the community at large to save less than the
amount of current investment, since the attempt to do so will necessarily raise incomes
to a level at which the sums that individuals choose to save add up to a figure exactly
equal to to the amount of investment.
• John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money ,
Chapter 7, p. 84
The theory is known as the "savings paradox."
in Samuelson 's influential Economics of 1948, which popularized the term.
Paradox of savings according to the mechanics of equilibrium.
The formal savings paradox can be formally described as a circuit paradox using the terms of Balances Mechanics
developed by the German economist Wolfgang Stützel ( German : Saldenmechanik ) : it is about saving by cutting
expenses, which always leads to a surplus of income for the Individual, therefore saving money. But once the whole
(in everyone's sense) is saved at the expense, the income of the economy only decreases.
• Partial sentence: for individual economic entities or a partial group of actors in the economy it is
valid: the lower the expenses, the greater the surplus income.
• Size mechanics: the decrease in expenditures of a partial group of actors in the economy can
only lead to a surplus of income if the complementary group accepts or accepts a surplus of
expenditures.
• Global ruling: a general decrease in expenses always leads overall to a decrease in income and
never to a surplus of income. [10]
Related concepts Edit
The savings paradox has been linked to the debt deflation theory of economic crises , which is called "the debt
paradox" [11] : people save not to increase savings, but to pay off debt. Furthermore, a work paradox and a
flexibility paradox have been proposed: the willingness to work more in a liquidity trap and wage flexibility after a
debt deflation shock can lead not only to lower wages, but to lower jobs. Lower. [12]
In April 2009, the vice chairwoman of the US Federal Reserve. In the US, Janet Yellen, spoke about the
“Deleveraging Paradox” described by economist Hyman Minsky : “Once this massive credit crisis hit, it wasn't long
before we were in a recession. The recession, in turn, deepened the credit crisis as demand and employment
declined, and credit losses at financial institutions increased. In fact, we've been in control of precisely this adverse
feedback loop for over a year. A process of balance sheet deleveraging has spread to almost everyone.
Consumers are reducing their purchases, especially in durable goods, to increase their savings. Companies are
canceling planned investments and laying off workers to preserve cash. Financial institutions are reducing their
assets to shore up capital and improve their chances of weathering the current storm. Once again, Minsky
understood this dynamic. He talked about the paradox of deleveraging, in which precautions are taken that may be
smart for individuals and companies, and of
"In fact, they are essential to returning the economy to a normal state, they magnify the distress of the economy as
a whole." [13] Reviews

Within mainstream economics , non-Keynesian economists, particularly neoclassical economists , criticize this
theory in three main respects.
The first criticism is that, following Say's law and the related circle of ideas, if demand decreases, prices will fall
(barring government intervention), and the resulting lower price will stimulate demand (although at lower benefit or
cost, possibly even lower wages). This criticism, in turn, has been challenged by New Keynesian economists , who
reject Say's law and instead point to evidence of fixed prices as a reason why prices do not fall into recession; This
remains a debated point.
The second criticism is that savings represent loanable funds , especially in banks, assuming that savings are held
in banks, rather than the currency itself being kept ("hidden under the mattress"). Therefore, an accumulation of
savings produces an increase in potential loans, which will reduce interest rates and stimulate borrowing.
Therefore, a decrease in consumer spending is offset by an increase in borrowing and subsequent investment and
spending. Two caveats are added to this criticism. First, if savings are held as cash, rather than being lent (directly
by savers, or indirectly, such as through bank deposits), loanable funds do not increase, and therefore a recession
may occur. but this is due to the holding of cash. , not to save per se. [14] Second, banks themselves may hold
cash, rather than lend it, resulting in the growth of excess reserves : funds on deposit but not lent. This is argued to
occur in liquidity trap situations, when interest rates are at (or near) a zero lower bound and savings still exceed
investment demand. Within Keynesian economics, the desire to hold currency rather than lend it is discussed under
liquidity preference .
Third, the paradox assumes a closed economy in which savings are not invested abroad (to finance exports of local
production abroad). Therefore, while the paradox may hold at a global level, it need not hold at a local or national
level: if a nation increases savings, this may be offset by trading partners consuming a larger amount relative to
their own production, that is, if the saving nation increases exports, and its partners increase imports. This criticism
is not very controversial and is also generally accepted by Keynesian economists, [15] who refer to it as "exporting a
way out of a recession". Furthermore, they point out that this frequently occurs in concert with currency devaluation
[16] (thus increasing exports and decreasing imports) and cannot function as a solution to a global problem,
because the global economy is a system closed; Not all nations can increase net exports.
Criticism of the Austrian school
Austrian School economist Friedrich Hayek criticized the paradox in a 1929 article, "The 'Savings Paradox',"
questioning the paradox proposed by Foster and
Catchings. [17] Hayek, and later Austrian School economists agree that if a population saves more money, the total
income of businesses will decrease, but they deny the claim that lower incomes lead to lower economic growth,
understanding that additional savings are used to create more capital to increase production. Once the new, more
productive capital structure is reorganized within the current structure, real production costs are reduced for most
firms. [ citation needed ] The critics of the Austrian school [ who? ] argue that using accumulated capital to increase
production is an act that requires expenditure, and therefore the Austrian argument does not refute the paradox. [
]
citation needed
See also Edit

■ Capitol Hill Babysitter Co-op

■ Decrease
■ Frugality
■ List of paradoxes
■ social trap
■ Vicious circle
■ Tragedy of the commons
■ In Praise of Idleness and Other Essays , an essay by Bertrand Russell on the topic of the
relationships between spending, saving, and work. References and sources

References
1. ^ These two formulations are given in Campbell R. McConnell
(1960: 261–62), with added emphasis: "By attempting to increase its savings rate , society may create
conditions in which the amount it can actually save is reduced. This phenomenon is called the thrift
paradox...[T]hrift, which has always been held in high esteem in our economy, now becomes a kind of
social vice . "
2. ^ Keynes, The general theory of employment, interest and
money , "Chapter 23. Notes on mercantilism, usury laws, stamped money and theories of
underconsumption"
3. ^ abcd Nash, Robert T.; Gramm, William P. (1969). "A
"neglected early statement of the savings paradox" . History of political economy. 1 (2): 395-400. doi :
10.1215/00182702-1-2-395 .
4. ^ See the history section for further discussion.

5. ^ English, Irish and subversives among scientists

sad, Noel Thompson, Nigel Allington, 2010, p. 122 :
"A suggestion that a more equitable distribution of income might be a remedy for general stagnation, and
that excessive savings may be harmful, is implicit in the Old Testament quotation in the Reply to Mr. Say
[by John Cazenove ( 1788–1879)].
6. ^ A reply to the letters of Mr. Say to Mr. Malthus, by John
Cazenove , uses the verse as an epigram.
7. ^ Studies in Economics, William Smart , 1895, p. 249
8. ^ Robertson, John M. (1892). The savings fallacy .
9. ^ William Trufaut Foster (1926). The dilemma of
savings .Pollak Foundation for Economic Research . Retrieved January 8, 2013.
10. ^ Wolfgang Stützel: Volkswirtschaftliche Saldenmechanik. Mohr
Siebeck, (2. Auflage) Tübingen 2011. S. 74.
11. ^ Savings Paradox , Paul Krugman
12. ^ Eggertsson, Gauti B .; Krugman, Paul (February 14,
2011), Debt, Deleveraging and Liquidity Trap: A Fisher-Minsky-Koo Approach (PDF), doi :
10.1093/qje/qjs023 , retrieved 2011-12 fifteen
13. ^ Federal Reserve-Janet Yellen-A Minsky Meltdown-April 2009
14. ^ See section 9.9 and
9.11 http://www.auburn.edu/~garriro/cbm.htm
15. ^ The Savings Paradox: For Real , Paul Krugman , July 7
2009
16. ^ Devaluing History , Paul Krugman , November 24,
2010
17. ^ Hayek on the paradox of savings
Sources
■ Samuelson, Paul & Nordhaus, William (2005). Economics (18th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-
07-123932-4 .
External links Edit
 — Irnmlionülbbundry —
claim
Prorwringe-lgnel boundary : .4 NORTHERN j
Nanicnal capital 1.0 AAEAS
Frozinrs capital

D 50 10015 Risalpurg

h in 100 150MM

64 Posha -hakl to
spmabad
w

AFGHANISTAN FEDERALLY ■ M
—32 ADMINISTERD
TRIBAL AREAS
arwali handg.P 32

lahore
Sargodha

5alawala
Quetta
tiquim

Samun 1 ' Whan

g
Shahhaz
PUNJAB ;
BALOCHISTAN
IRAN
! Naaahshah

SINDH
INDIA
Pas
False
ni
Karep" MirpurKhas -
Ai zbiar Sea 23 ■ F 24 —

72