Worth Reading: Ben Bolch on Macro

["John Gelles" <jjgelles@xxxxxxxx>]

	As the most published amateur on PKT I do have
	a small following:  People who have read little of
	the required literature (and some pros who have
	read it all), who enjoy getting to the meat of the
	problems of unemployment, poverty, etc.

	One of the primary pains in my rear here used to
	be Hayekians.  They have a different literature,
	albeit they share some key authors.  They love
	unemployment and poverty -- for other people.

	Lo and behold I've been taken in by one who
	may be one of theirs.  But not to laugh or despair.
	Ben Block in "The Independent Review", Spring
	1998, whose article "Is Macroeconomics Believable"
	may possibly be read at the following URL
	http://www.independent.org/tii/media/pdf/TIR24_bolch.pdf
	has written the most readable account of what goes
	on here that one can imagine.

	The article is extremely inconclusive -- you read it
	and it clarifies PKT's last five years of proceedings --
	but it comes from what I think may be Hayek's
	side.  It fails utterly to provide Gelles' solutions to
	unemployment and poverty (the individual estate
	account, guaranteed job loans, no-tax strategies,
	etc.), but that is understandable.  It is worth reading
	to put into comprehensible form all the Keynesian
	literature, econometric effort, and anecdotal stuff
	that originally appeared here in less organized
	form.

	I hope we can make it the basis of an informal
	seminar.  I have it in magazine form and on my
	hard drive in Adobe form.  I hope you too can
	get hold of it.  If the URL above does not work,
	try              http://www.independent.org
	and futz around on its pages for a back issue of
	The Independent Review.

	There is something to be said for reading a hostile
	explanation of your Keynesian thoughts.  Such
	a piece, if well written, gets right to the heart of
	matters that amateurs like myself need to under-
	stand what some of our academics mean when
	they write.

	If anyone out there knows of this "Journal of
	Political Economy", which may be a front for
	Friedmanism, please say so.  The article on the
	core of macroeconomics asks the right questions.
	If we offer the right answers -- which Bloch does
	not, our use of it will be, in my opinion, more
	in keeping with out mission than anything I've
	yet seen in our seminars or proceedings.

	John Gelles