----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
Moss replies to Chas Anderson: 
 
I am not sure I understand the criticism.  I said nothing about whether the 
rise in P causes the rise in M or vice versa.  The fact that the rise in 
liquid balances is a necessary condition for sustaining the rise in P is a 
key platform of post-Smithian classical economic theory (I am following 
Samuel Hollander on this point).  The history of economic thought is full 
of cost-push inflationists and refuting that line of thinking is, in my 
opinion, one of the most important contributions of the quantity theory 
tradition.  My judgment is that textbook Keynesians --- those who "carried 
the Keynesian cross" into policy-making circles ---were most inclined to 
vulgar versions of cost-push inflation and that is why the quantity 
tradition represents a continuous tradition that disputes cost-push lines 
of argument.    
 
The context of my remarks was Professor Bateman's point that the quantity 
theory revival was a reaction to Keynesianism.  My point is that 
Keynesianism (or more correctly vulgar Keynesianism) is a variation from a 
long-standing orthodox tradition. 
 
I am sorry I did not make that clear. 
 
L. Moss 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]