Gordon Brady might find N. Gregory Mankiw's 1992 /European Economic 
Review/ article titled, "The Reincarnation of Keynesian Economics," 
helpful on this.  Mankiw discusses 6 "Dubious Keynesian Propositions" 
and concludes: "New Keynesian economics is far different from old 
Keynesian economics -- so different, in fact, that today the label 
'Keynesian' may generate more confusion than understanding.  With new 
Keynesians looking so much like old classicals, perhaps we should 
conclude that the tern 'Keynesian' has out-lived its usefulness.  
Perhaps we need a new label to describe the school of macroeconomics 
that accepts the existence of involuntary unemployment, monetary 
non-neutrality, and sticky wages and prices.  Until a new label is 
found, however, we can safely say that Keynesian economics is alive and 
well."

Of course, if Mankiw read the classicals (including Alfred Marshall and 
A.C. Pigou before 1950) in their original rather than Keynes's distorted 
version of what they wrote, he would have found that the label that fits 
what he is looking for is "Classical Macroeconomics."

James Ahiakpor

On 5/8/2011 7:56 PM, Gordon Brady wrote:
>
> Dear Sir:
>
> I have heard several economists say they are part-time Keynesians, 
> part-time Monetarists, and part-time All-Schools-of-Thought.  Under 
> what conditions are Keynesian approaches relevant and good policy?  
> What work is good on this?
>
> Gordon L. Brady, Ph.D., M.S.L.
> Senior Economist
> Joint Tax Committee
> U.S. Congress
> 244 Ford House Office Building
> Washington, DC 20505
> 202.225.6024
>


-- 
James C.W. Ahiakpor, Ph.D.
Professor&  Chair
California State University, East Bay
Hayward, CA 94542

(510) 885-3137
(510) 885-4796 (Fax: Not Private)