Re: The long and short of it

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

I don't understand the claim here. Is it just that "Keynesian"
theories are like all the other existing theories
in that they do not and cannot
address the full set of our policy interests? I'm guessing
this is the claim, but it seems a weak criticism. On the other
hand, if the idea is that there are no "Keynesian" style
growth models, I would disagree strongly. Since you like
IS-LM, Herb, you could look at some of Hugh Rose's work
for example: as early as 1966 Rose included (non-micro based)
concepts of endogenous growth, a crude Phillips curve, and
distributional considerations (by functional class) in a
growth model with money.
--Alan G. Isaac

On Sun, 30 Oct 1994 04:29:42 -0700 Herbert Gintis said:
>                                    I did not say that we
>should ignore the short run, or its contribution to the long run. I
>said we should not sacrifice the long run for the short, and we should
>evaluate stabilization policies in light of the contribution to
>sustainable, egalitarian growth in living standards. The fact is that
>Keynesian type theories do not have the tools to conceptualize and
>solve problems of this sort.