Postulates of classical economics

[Kazuhiro Kurose <kurose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Keynes, as is well known, rejected the second postulate of classical
economics in the sense that "the wage-goods equivalent of the exsiting
money-wage is not an accurate indication of the marginal disutility of
labor"(GT, p. 10).
However, he attacked neither concept of production function nor utility
function. He didn't attack the maximaization and optimization at all. And
he didn't explicitly insist that we can't draw the same labor supply curve
as the classical economists do. There is an obvious contrast, compared to
his insist that we can't draw saving curve as the function of interest rate
as the classical economists do (See chap. 14).
The possible interpretation is that of Clower. Clower, as is well known,
regarded his rejection of second postulate as the criticisim against the
classical economics that it doesn't provide an adequate account
disequilibrium phenomenon, and insisted that Keynes didn't reject the
generality of classical economics (See "The Keynesian counter-revolution: A
theoretical appraisal"). And Clower opened the route toward the studies
toward the microfoundation of Keynesian economics.

However, such a lot of post-Keynesian as the member of this mailing list
wouldn't be satisfied by Clower's interpretation due to various reasons. So
what is the critical point when Keynes attacked the classical economics?

**************************************
  Kazuhiro Kurose
  Graduate School of Economics and Business
  Administration, Hokkaido University
  Kita 9 Nishi 7, Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
  060-0809
    TEL: +81-11-716-2111 ex:2786
 **************************************