RE: Re: RE: Re: A Krugman Klassic

["Forstater, Mathew" <ForstaterM@xxxxxxxx>]

Davidson is not merely an authority on Keynes but of Keynesian Economics of all
varieties, and in comparison to other trends in macro, such as new classical,
rational expectations etc. He has a whole story, but I don't think we need to
dig up the details.

In Heilbroner's case, he is not the kind of person to take the position that
"perspectives" means him being published, nor would he say there weren't
perspectives just because he wasn't published, if it otherwise showed real
diversity of perspectives. In fact, he has been in JEP ("Was Schumpeter Right
After All?").

Mat

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad DeLong [mailto:delong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 7:16 PM
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [PEN-L:2903] Re: RE: Re: A Krugman Klassic


>I believe Paul Davidson, who regardless of your theoretical leanings must be
>considered a foremost authority on Keynes, was excluded from the
>JEP's symposium
>on Keynesian Economics.

Cheap shots.

*None* of the people writing in the symposium--neither Tobin, Mankiw,
Romer, Greenwald, Stiglitz, nor King--were authorities of any sort,
foremost or not, on John Maynard Keynes. Moreover, Davidson had been
in the journal two years before. Unless we think that someone is
*the* very best person to write on a topic, and that that topic *has*
to be in the symposium, we try not to have the same stable of authors
over and over again. I presume that one of Stiglitz's aim in putting
together the symposium was to avoid yet another round of exegesis of
the _General Theory_.

>Heilbroner has remarked that "the only thing the
>_Journal of Economic Perspectives_ lacks is...perspectives."

Perhaps he'll turn in a ms. the next time we try to get him to write for us.



Brad DeLong