----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
Thanks to David Colander, Susan Feiner and Chas Anderson. To your main point that the
present textbook confusions on ADAS are due to: (1) the market pressure (eg. non-
specialist reviewers from CCs, high enrolments in the non- (economics) majors, say in
business courses) and (2) attraction of this model for some teachers, administrators and
students, I would like to add that there is also a widespread confusion about the nature
of this model. I think that that has started when the neoclassicals, especially the
monetarists, have accepted the Phillips curve. Recall the famous admission by a leading
monetarist that we are all Keynesians now. Some of the leading neoclassical economists
(one of them is a Nobel laureate and another is on the editorial boards of several leading
professional journals) used to refer to the Phillips
curve as the (inverted) aggregate supply curve in their scholarly and widely read
publications. Somewhere in my 1991 paper in the Australian Economics Papers and also in my
other publications I said that the Phillips curve is a price or wage setting/reaction
equation where as the aggregate supply curve is a quantity response/reaction equation.
Therefore they cannot be the same.
 
In my view, in addition the factors you three have mentioned, it is this sort of confusion
among the echelons of the profession that might have encouraged to rubber stamp the
Phillips curve as the aggregate supply curve by the bulk of the profession.
 
Bill Rao 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]