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
Sender:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 9 Dec 2012 19:35:33 -0500
Reply-To:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
In-Reply-To:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
8bit
From:
Alan G Isaac <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (22 lines)
On 12/9/2012 6:17 PM, Steve Kates wrote:
> You would really have to wonder what the Keynesian
> Revolution actually was if you follow Barkley Rosser. All
> those “demonstrably false” statements I make, and yet it
> is he who thinks that classical economists thought the
> answer to recessions was a fiscal stimulus. So just what
> is it that he thinks Keynes did that was so special?


A question like this might be answered by pointing
to Don Patinkin's "Anticipations of the General Theory?".
The suggestion that the existence of such anticipations
implies that there is nothing special about Keynes's
work is not recognizable as an approach to the history
of thought.

One plausible way to ask what was so special is to look
over four score years and ask, what continues to influence
theory and empirics?

Alan Isaac

ATOM RSS1 RSS2