Re: Minsky, FIH, and stability <FAC_BROSSER@VAX1.ACS.JMU.EDU>

["Alan G. Isaac" <AISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes! Just a few examples: institutionally determined central bank
behavior, current evolution of the financial markets, current
exchange rate regime, degree of unionization of the labor force
and institutional structure of labor relations, etc., etc., etc.
I suspect Paul Davidson will argue that all of these variations
can be encompassed by Keynes's _General Theory_, but I would argue rather
that Keynes's insights provide initial clues about how to construct
models relevant to specific cases. This may be the belief that
no economic theory is general in Paul Davidson's sense (which I
still claim is different than Keynes's sense, vide Ch. 2 of _GT_.)
(In fact, I am not persuaded that Keynes's theory is "general" in
Paul Davidson's sense, since it dropped the assumption that labor
markets clear but--in my view--did not offer a fully developed
alternative model of wage determination.)

On Thu, 27 Jan 1994 00:04:35 -0700 <FAC_BROSSER@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>     More generally when we get to analyzing real economies, I support
>an open-minded eclectic approach that takes into account the historical
>and institutional idiosyncracies of the economy under examination.  There
>is no general, universally applicable "one size fits all" theory, that
>explains everything in every economy [material deleted ...]