SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Warren Young)
Date:
Sat Mar 17 09:27:31 2007
Message-ID:
<000701c7680c$ffbd70d0$42664684@IBMC7120137F65>
References:
<[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]><000801c76569$9c1a4fd0$3f664684@IBMC7120137F65> <[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (13 lines)
Roy Weintraub has made a very important point when reminding us about Sidney 
Weintraub's use of C+I and not "IS".
Indeed, the original diagram as presented by Hicks had a CC (MEC) schedule 
and not SI .
The original Harrod-Meade-Hicks equational and diagramatic system underwent 
many changes from its original nominal income- interest rate framework to 
what became the "trained intuition" of many, but not all economists, as Roy 
points out...
On these and related points, see Young (1987) and Darity and Young (1995)...

Warren Young


ATOM RSS1 RSS2