[no subject]

[pdavidso <pdavidso@xxxxxxx>]

>===== Original Message From Erdogan Bakir <erdogan.bakir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
=====
>.
>Is this the same logic as the one you used before in your
>"international money and real world" when you announced the
>failure of radical school in explaining the economic reality, which
>was brought about by the demise of the soviet system, or
>something to that effect.

What are you referin g to?

>I also would like to ask how accurate it is to reduce the differences
>between mainstream and non-mainstream economics to the
>number of axioms they employ in their models. Some mainstream
>economists such as Turnovsky, Bernanke, Coleman, to name but
>few, relaxed some of those restrictive assumptions in their recent
>papers, so does this mean that differences will disappear in the
>near future?

The question ios of fundemental assumptions -- namely the neutrality of money,
the ergodic axiom and the gross substitution axiom. If any of these axioms are
dropped then all existence proofs of equilibrium are put in jeopardy.

If they merely drop assumption of profit maximization, or in the short-run
money may be non-neutral, etc. then these economists are merely using the
classical model (at least in the long run) while in troducing short run ad hoc
constraints.

Paul

Paul Davidson
Editor, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics
University of Tennessee
SMC 503
Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-0550
phone # (561)369-1951; fax #(561)369-1951;
email pdavidson@xxxxxxx
http://econ.bus.utk.edu/davidsonextra/Davidson.html