PEN-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
Re: Re: Re: AD?
because prices are on the vertical axis.
>
> michael,
> I get the message that most (if not all) are
> losing interest in this, so this will be my last on
> this. But.....
> Not clear to me why AS/AD implies some
> focus on prices as a policy variable, other than
> that they are in there. Maybe there is more of a
> tilt there. Keynesians were certainly criticized for
> ignoring inflation, although AS/AD allowed for a
> non-monetarist explanation of it.
> I grant you that expectations are not in there.
> But, I do not see why AS/AD as such says government
> can do nothing. In a world of upward-sloping AS curves,
> government can move AD out and thus raise real output
> and lower unemployment. Again (and for the last time)
> it is the assumption of a vertical AS that gives that last
> conclusion, unless one pulls a Colander and declares the
> vertical AS curve to shift out with government AD policies.
> Oh well, enough of that, except to note that probably
> the reason that Colander's JEP piece on this got so much
> mail is that it is not just radical economists who are frustrated
> but pretty much most economists with a brain in their heads.
> None of the textbook presentations are fully internally
> consistent and most of us know this. I have cooked up my
> own version that makes sense to me, but that is what a lot
> of us have been having to do while hoping the students don't
> get too confused by our diverging from whatever text we have
> made them buy.
> Barkley Rosser
> http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb
> -----Original Message-----
> From: michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thursday, August 31, 2000 6:10 PM
> Subject: [PEN-L:1077] Re: AD?
>
>
> >It is anti-keynesian in the sense that it suggests that appropriate prices
> >can guide an economy. It is anti-k. because it ignores the role of
> >expectations. It is anti-k. because it is used to suggest that
> >intervention in the economy cannot do much good.
> > >
> >> michael,
> >> OK, I grant that on pp. 300-303 of the GT, Keynes
> >> does not describe an AD curve in P-Q space, although
> >> he clearly describes an AS, curve, without calling it that.
> >> So, perhaps a downward-sloping AD curve in P-Q
> >> space is "non-Keynesian" in that sense. But, why is it
> >> "anti-Keynesian"? After all, a downward-sloping AD
> >> curve allows for cost-push inflation theories, although
> >> one can get that with a vertical or upward-sloping AD
> >> if one has it shift backwards due to falling income with
> >> a backward-shifting AS curve.
> >> Barkley Rosser
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >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
- Thread context:
- going left,
J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. Thu 31 Aug 2000, 22:23 GMT
- AD?,
J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. Thu 31 Aug 2000, 21:44 GMT
- Re: AD?,
michael Thu 31 Aug 2000, 22:10 GMT
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: Re: AD?,
J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. Thu 31 Aug 2000, 22:52 GMT
- leading economic indicators,
Jim Devine Thu 31 Aug 2000, 21:07 GMT
- Current account deficits (was The IMF and the Presidential Candidates),
Bill Rosenberg Thu 31 Aug 2000, 21:04 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]