Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Thu Jan 4 09:14:01 2007 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
In response to Barkley Rosser's latest post, let me make two points:
(1) Demonstrations of Keynes's error in interpreting Say's law are
already in print. See, for example, Steven Kates's 2003 edited volume,
"Two Hundred Years of Say's Law," that was compiled following a HES list
discussion, and numerous pages in "Classical Macroeconomics: Some Modern
Variations and Distortions" (Routledge 2003). I well understand that
some people will choose to hold on to Keynes's views no matter what
explanations they see (or hear) demonstrating their errors. (I also
know that there are people who still believe in the practical utility of
studying Marx's economics.)
(2) I suspect that Rosser hasn't bothered to read Keynes's 1923 book, "a
Tract on Monetary Reform," particularly page 88, in order to appreciate
that what he conceived of as the long run in which we are all dead was
mistaken. (I first made that point in "On Keynes's Misinterpretation of
'Capital' in the Classical Theory of Interest," HOPE 1990. I'm well
aware that few pay any attention to that article.) Thus, I would not
keep repeating how Keynes misrepresented the long run in classical
monetary analysis. I don't believe in the utility of "banging my head
against the wall." I have more important things to do with my time than
that.
James Ahiakpor
|
|
|