Re: The long and short of it

To: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: The long and short of it
From: Steve.Keen@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 12:51:34 +1000

I have to second Paul Phillips on this. If the short-run and the long-run
are treated as analytically distinct--so that short-run fluctuations are
determined by completely different factors to long-run growth, and one
is super-imposed on the latter--then I think we lose a great deal. This
leads to the deduction that, for example, the Great Depression didn't
matter--it was just a cyclical thing and (some time) after it we got
back to the average again.
Cheers,
Steve Keen

Follow-Ups:
- Re: The long and short of it
  - From: Herbert Gintis

Prev by Date: The long and short of it
Next by Date: Re: Giving Paul a break, and other subjects
Previous by thread: The long and short of it
Next by thread: Re: The long and short of it
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Thread context:
- long-run and short-run, RICHARD P.F. HOLT Sun 30 Oct 1994, 13:58 GMT
- Re: Giving Paul a break, and other subjects, James K. Galbraith Sun 30 Oct 1994, 04:55 GMT
  - Conservation principles, Herbert Gintis Sun 30 Oct 1994, 11:33 GMT
- The long and short of it, PHILLPS Sat 29 Oct 1994, 22:13 GMT
  - <Possible follow-up(s)>
  - Re: The long and short of it, Steve . Keen Sun 30 Oct 1994, 02:48 GMT
    - Re: The long and short of it, Herbert Gintis Sun 30 Oct 1994, 11:22 GMT
  - Re: The long and short of it, Alan G. Isaac Sun 30 Oct 1994, 13:07 GMT
    - Re: The long and short of it, Herbert Gintis Mon 31 Oct 1994, 11:54 GMT
- [no subject], Bill Brown Sat 29 Oct 1994, 15:52 GMT

[ Other Periods | Other mailing lists | Search ]