----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
Just a brief comment on what has been going on. Some economic models seem 
to come, go, and then return in new guises (e.g. the imperfect competition 
core of the New Keynesian system), while other, despite being "flavor of 
the month" (for five years or so) seem never to return to prominence (e.g. 
disequilibrium macroeconomics of Malinvaud-Patinkin-Clower vintage). Laudan 
and others have tries to explain the former case; I don't know of anyone 
who has even dealt with the latter. 
 
What I propose is a broader perspective than just looking at "Monetarism" 
per se. 
 
Why is it that in Physics, for example, co-existence of models (Newtonian, 
Relativistic, Quantum) is accepted as natural by physicists, as they try to 
describe, explain, and predict phenomenon which exist in parallel, albeit 
different distance-mass-time frameworks (cgs etc), while in economics, this 
is not the case?  Perhaps a socio-psychological (behavioral) dimension 
should be added to the proposed analytical approach suggested by Brad and 
Rob. 
 
Warren Young 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]