Re: GT and microfoundations

["J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

Greg,
     Mancur Olson's misperception is widely held,
as is the even more widely held misperception that
Keynesian outcomes only hold for a world with
downwardly sticky wages.  Indeed, the two
misperceptions are not unrelated.
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Nowell <GN842@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: POST-KEYNESIAN THOUGHT <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Saturday, February 05, 2000 12:52 AM
Subject: Re: GT and microfoundations


>Gosh, John, I wouldn't presume to speak for Keynesian scholars everywhere
but I
>should point out taht the noted reactionary Mancur Olson wrote in the ass
end of
>the Rise and Decline of Nations that "Keynesian Economics" ONLY makes sense
in a
>monpolistic environment!
>
>"John M. Legge" wrote:
>
>> I have just completed reading Keppler's Monopolistic Competition Theory
in
>> which the author traces the development of monopolistic competition
theory
>> from Sraffa's 1926 epitaph for perfect competition to Stigler's and
>> Friedman's unchallenged rejection of monopolistic competition on
essentially
>> ideological grounds in the 1950s.
>>
>> Keppler makes the point that many of the Cambridge people behind the
>> original developmnet of monopolistic competition theory were also
associates
>> of Keynes, and refocussed their efforts on macroeconomics after the
>> pubklication of the GT, leaving Chamberlin to battle the University of
>> Chicago on his own.
>>
>> On page 189 Keppler writes:
>> ...although Keynesianism is still very much alive (albeit on the
defense),
>> it will continue to lack microfoundations as long as monopolistic
>> compeittion is not taken into account.  Some research in this field is
still
>> active...
>>
>> Is this a fair statement of the position?
>>
>> JML
>
>--
>Gregory P. Nowell
>Associate Professor
>Department of Political Science, Milne 100
>State University of New York
>135 Western Ave.
>Albany, New York 12222
>
>Fax 518-442-5298
>
>