Doug writes: 

1. "The original Samuelson-Solow Phillips curve proposed a stable permanent trade-off between inflation and unemployment ..."

When estimated, the S and S PC is positively sloped: reducing unemployment also reduces inflation (i.e. unbelievable)

2. "Is there even one economist in the entire world today who defends the old Phillips curve?"

How many economists 

a. have read the 1954 theory that Phillips provided for his curve (and know about the accidental circumstances by which he was obliged to use a labour market model in his empirical piece)?

b. realise that Friedman derived his expectations augmentation directly from Phillips?  

c. realise how destabilising the consequences of inflation are in Phillips' model ("the system becomes unstable") in comparison to Friedman's (the system returns to equilibrium)?

RL 


----- Messaggio originale -----
Da: "Doug Mackenzie" <[log in to unmask]>
A: [log in to unmask]
Inviato: Domenica, 13 novembre 2011 22:46:16
Oggetto: Re: [SHOE] Backhouse and Bateman, "Wanted: Worldly Philosophers"

> I'd like a definition of "rejected".
> E.g., http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=phillips+curve

The original Samuelson-Solow Phillips curve proposed a stable permanent trade-off between inflation and unemployment, based on the assumption of static expectations. Is there even one economist in the entire woorld today who defends the old Phillips curve? For that matter, is there any evidence of Keynes himself believing anything remotely like this? I know that New Keynesians talk about long run/short run Phillips curves (i.e. they agree with Friedman), but I was responding to the claim that Samuelson type Old Keynesian econ is valid or relevant. It is not.

Doug MacKenzie
Carroll College