PKT debate

[PHILLPS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

I have followed, with considerable interest the ongoing debate between
Paul Davidson and Bill Mitchell (and others) about what is, or is not,
Keynesianism, post-Keynesianism, post Keynsianism, etc. and, as
usual, am left somewhat confused.  This, however, is a much more
pedestrian enquiry but one which, I think, is not unrelated.  In
advance I might invite responses not only from Bill but from George,
Steve and Rick who, if they are still on the net might wish to respond.
I was reading today the summary of the Accord, Mark VII. I won't try
to summarize it since you are familiar with it.  But it seems to me
to be an _explicitly post (post-)Keynesian _ document -- i.e. it
recognizes a "horizontal" phillips curve (don't blame me) and that
the unions can solve the problems (of capitalism) by holding down
wage rates in the  high demand areas (no extra demands) while the
Commission raises rates of the  lowest groups through the safety
net provisions.  Redistribution will take place through the
superannuation and the tax system (which greatly reduces taxes for
the mid-income tax earner).  Correct me if I am wrong, but this
seems to mimic Weintraub's analysis and proscription.  My reading
of the economic literature is that, in relative terms that Paul
Davidson would approve, it has been successful.  It certainly was
when I was there (-;).  Would any of you like to respond?

Paul Phillips,
<Phillps@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>