Re: Today's Wall Street Journal on Mankiw's new textbook

[newrock@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Louis-Philippe Rochon)]

I don't disagree that opening a dialogue with other schools is wasted, but
before we claim that there exists similarities between post-Keyneisnas and
new Keynesians, we should understand what New Keynesian theory rreally is
all about.  On this note, see Paul Davidson's excellent article recently in
JPKE.  On the question of money, I think post-Keynesians (Dymski, Pollin and
probably Palley), have been too hasty in claiming that there exists
similarities.  Personally, I think that is pure nonsense.  I won't go into
all the finer points now, but I don't think their version of credit
rationing is worth discussing much.  While credit may drive the economy, as
pot-Keynesians argue, the supply of credit remains supply-determined by the
bank's liabilities (by the way, this was also the argument of Minsky and
Kaldor in the late fifties).

If anyone else is interested in this issue, I think PKT could only benefit
from this discussin.

louis-philippe


>Why should there not be greater discourse between the various schools of
>thought. By
>ignoring others are we not driving down the road ignoring the sign posts.
>
>At 21:57 9/10/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>Dear PKters,
>>
>>What is perhaps more revolting is the fact the some post-Keynesians actually
>>believe that there can be a dialogue between New Keynesians and
>>post-Keynesians.  I hope hte Wall Street article will put an end to this
>>ludicrous notion, and put post-Keynesian theory back on its own
>>'revolutionary' track.
>>
>>louis-philippe rochon
>>
>>
>
>