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