Re: Debunking Holy Writ

[Bruce McFarling <ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gunnar wrote:

>In my view, Skidelsky's construction and Keynes's comments
>do not support the notion that "Samuelson's reading of the
>General Theory and the General Theory itself are two completely
>different things.

Keynes comments neither support nor overturn the notion,
since if you read the section persuaded that the ISLM
model is a reasonable representation of the General Theory
system, then what you read when Keynes means by the
interest rate as a monetary phenomenon will be different from
what you will read if you come to it after absorbing some of
the debunking of the ISLM as a workable theory and the critique
of the ISLM as a representation of the General Theory.  And
after your reading of post keynesian work on Keynes, the fact
that Skidelsky talks about Keynes' theory in terms of the ISLM
apperatus will have alerted you to the fact that this view
is coloured by post-war Samuelsonian, or what Robinson called
"bastard Keynesian", economic theory.


--
Dr. Bruce R. McFarling, PhD
Bus. Office 1.72 -- (02) 4348-4078
School of Business
Faculty of the Central Coast
Newcastle University, Ourimbah