Re: Bob Solow on the post keynesians

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

For the record, I do not believe that the Post Keynesians are
merely a "sociological club" (that's Gintis, not me: folks may
remember a debate between us on pen-l last year).  I also don't
see the PKs as silly or misguided (and never said so). The PKs
do differ from the mainstream in several significant ways (contra
Gintis). That's why I find it worthwhile to read PK literature.

By the way, I think that the PK insight about the role of
fundamental uncertainty is very important.  However, I can see
that in many situations, it is useful to have a full-certainty
equilibrium model as a notional standard of comparison for
understanding the uncertain real world.  In a recent paper,
I introduced a rational-expectations equilibrium even though
I made it very clear that I do not see such an equilibrium
as possible.  My point was to say that even under such
utterly ideal conditions, the problem under analysis still
exists.

By the way, I think it's interesting that Solow has moved
away from Samuelson, to see economics as inherently a social
rather than a physical science.  Has this changed the way MIT
grad students are indoctrinated?

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