New vs. Post Keynesians

[Jim Devine <JNDF%LMUACAD.BITNET@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I want to repeat a question that I posed to Paul Davidson, because I
never saw an answer.  That is: from a post-Keynesian perspective, what's
wrong with introducing the new Keynesian idea of quantity-constrained
markets,  so that (say)  the distinction between the *notional*
demand for labor (according to the Marginal Physical Product of Labor)
and the *effective* demand for labor (where the wage rate is below
the MPPL)? (that's the real wage, by the way, but I'm not presuming
that anyone bargains over real wages.)

This theory showed up in Patinkin's opus *despite* his confusion
of market-clearing with equilibrium.  I've used Clower's terminology.
I can see what's wrong with theory if it's the *only* "imperfection"
introduced into a Walrasian system, but what if it's one of many
real-world-oriented "imperfections" that plays a role in one's
theory?

sincerely,

Jim Devine   BITNET: jndf@lmuacad    INTERNET: jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (off); 310/202-6546 (hm); FAX: 310/338-1950