RE: Re: Re: Small and Imperfect Step to Alternative Text

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

I was thinking of using deLong's textbook, but was turned off by:

(1) its emphasis on growth theory, a subject that neoclassical economics
doesn't understand well at all (clinging as it does, to the aggregate
production function, which Samuelson admitted years ago was fallacious).

(2) his decision to start with three chapters on something called "flexible
price macroeconomics," i.e., full-employment macroeconomics. The assumption
is that if prices (and wages) were only flexible, then the capitalist
economy would be at full employment. The assumption also is that (contrary
to Keynes) that the process of getting to long-term equilibrium  in the
short run has no effect on the nature of the long-term equilibrium.

I like a book like Gordon's, which starts with the short-term, something
ortho-macro does pretty well (considering).

There were also some details that turned me off. The book is pretty well
written, though.

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Pollak [mailto:mpollak@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 10:33 AM
> To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [PEN-L:26251] Re: Re: Small and Imperfect Step to Alternative
> Text
>
>
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2002, Michael Perelman wrote:
>
> > Damn it.  Not micro economics.  I need a decent macro text,
> or is that an
> > oxymoron?
>
> Just out of curiousity, do you have any opinion of Brad DeLong's new
> textbook?  I haven't looked at it, I was just wondering if anyone else
> has.  He naturally has a lot of discussion of it at his website.
>
> Michael
>