Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: intro macro text

[michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Because AD  does not exist in Keynes in the same form.
>
> Michael,
>       What you find in Chapter 21, Section IV of
> the General Theory is indeed the AS/AD that
> one finds in the textbooks, especially on pp. 300-303.
> It is true that in this discussion he does not use
> the terms "aggregate supply" and "aggregate demand"
> which he does elsewhere in a different context.  He
> simply refers to the "elasticity of supply" and how
> it varies as "output increases."  His explanation of
> why the elasticity goes from being infinite to zero
> explicitly refers to "bottle-necks."  This term appears
> several times in the discussion.  It is clear that the
> changes in output are due to changes in "demand."
>       So, I remain curious.  Exactly why is AS/AD analysis
> inherently "anti-Keynesian"?
> Barkley Rosser
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Perelman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 6:46 PM
> Subject: [PEN-L:1001] Re: Re: Re: Re: intro macro text
>
>
> >
> >
> >"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote:
> >
> >>       Did the McKenna version resemble the current
> >> standard formulation or the Davidson-Smolensky
> >> formulation?  Did it have any other odd particulars
> >> to it?
> >
> >I don't know.  David Collander told me.
> >
> >>
> >>       I disagree that AS/AD is inherently "anti-Keynesian."
> >> For the umpteenth time, go look at Chapter 21, Section
> >> IV of Keynes's General Theory.
> >
> >Oh, my God.  I have been told umpteen times.  How stupid of me.
> >I said that Keynes used the words AS and AD, but not the AS/AD found in the
> >textbooks.
> >
> >> There it is in a verbal
> >> description, if not in a drawn graph, well before McKenna.
> >>       I have also noted that one can have a consistent
> >> linkage between the K-cross and AS/AD if one does
> >> the K-cross in purely nominal terms.  One gets the
> >> shift of AD out of the K-cross multiplier analysis.  How
> >> it breaks out between a price and output increase then
> >> depends on the shape of the AS curve.  I even do an
> >> analysis of the multiplier that involves purely price increases
> >> for the vertical AS zone case.
> >>      I may be more enamored of the
> >> multiplier than many because I also teach Urban Economics,
> >> where it is a very real  phenomenon.  I hear colleagues who
> >> are using Mankiw and don't mind that he has relegated the
> >> multiplier to a dinky box in the back because they think that
> >> "there is no multiplier" and just shake my head.  Sure as hell
> >> is one out there, and I, for one, think students should know it.
> >>       Again, I think the "anti-Keynesian" implication comes
> >> from assuming a vertical AS curve, not the use of AS/AD
> >> itself, per se.
> >> Barkley Rosser
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Michael Perelman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 12:32 PM
> >> Subject: [PEN-L:980] Re: Re: intro macro text
> >>
> >> >The first book to have introduced AS-AD seems to have been.  McKenna,
> J.P.
> >> 1955.
> >> >Aggregate Economic Analysis, 1st ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
> It
> >> did
> >> >not have much influence.
> >> >
> >> >"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>       I note that the first people, after Keynes himself,
> >> >> to use the terminology of aggregate supply and aggregate
> >> >> demand were Paul Davidson and Eugene Smolensky in
> >> >> their 1964 book, _Aggregate Supply and Demand Analysis_.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Yes, their's was different in that respect.  They were not just trying
> to
> >> hoist
> >> >macro onto a simple supply and demand curve.  Keynes provided the
> >> terminology,
> >> >but the theory AS/AD is anti-Keynesian.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> They followed the main Keynes version using Z-score functions
> >> >> in a space of employment on the x-axis and revenue on the
> >> >> y-axis.  This, of course, resembles the "Keynesian cross,"
> >> >> although not in its standard textbook Samuelsonian form.
> >> >> It is not the same as the current AS/AD that has P on the y-axis.
> >> >> But, as I have already noted, one can find that one in Chapter
> >> >> 21 of Keynes's _General Theory_.
> >> >> Barkley Rosser
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: Keaney Michael <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>
> >> >> To: 'pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 2:30 AM
> >> >> Subject: [PEN-L:964] intro macro text
> >> >>
> >> >> >Peter Dorman wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Stretton's book is interesting but very idiosyncratic -- not suitable
> >> for
> >> >> >the
> >> >> >sort of course I want to teach.  For me, there are two things I'm
> trying
> >> to
> >> >> >accomplish, to improve student's understanding of how economies work,
> >> and
> >> >> to
> >> >> >increase their ability to critique mainstream economics as an
> >> intellectual
> >> >> >and
> >> >> >political force.  That's why I'm happy to use an orthodox text, as
> long
> >> as
> >> >> >it
> >> >> >isn't too counterproductive pedagogically.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >MK writes: I'm not sure how Stretton does not fit your criteria. I
> read
> >> his
> >> >> >book as trying to accomplish just those aims. And it would be a
> strange
> >> >> >orthodoxy that dispensed with AS/AD, as you would wish it to do. Of
> >> course
> >> >> >the content may be too broad in coverage for your purposes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >In a recent RRPE John McDermott brought to attention Robert
> Guttmann's
> >> >> >neglected "How Credit-Money Shapes the Economy" (M.E. Sharpe, 1994).
> >> While
> >> >> >it's probably not at all what you are looking for, its treatment of
> >> money
> >> >> as
> >> >> >endogenous enables Guttmann to offer a very good economic history of
> the
> >> US
> >> >> >to the present. It's a lot more convincing than most macro.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Michael K.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >Michael Perelman
> >> >Economics Department
> >> >California State University
> >> >Chico, CA 95929
> >> >
> >> >Tel. 530-898-5321
> >> >E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >--
> >Michael Perelman
> >Economics Department
> >California State University
> >Chico, CA 95929
> >
> >Tel. 530-898-5321
> >E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
>
>


--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx