----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- Just a brief comment on what has been going on. Some economic models seem to come, go, and then return in new guises (e.g. the imperfect competition core of the New Keynesian system), while other, despite being "flavor of the month" (for five years or so) seem never to return to prominence (e.g. disequilibrium macroeconomics of Malinvaud-Patinkin-Clower vintage). Laudan and others have tries to explain the former case; I don't know of anyone who has even dealt with the latter. What I propose is a broader perspective than just looking at "Monetarism" per se. Why is it that in Physics, for example, co-existence of models (Newtonian, Relativistic, Quantum) is accepted as natural by physicists, as they try to describe, explain, and predict phenomenon which exist in parallel, albeit different distance-mass-time frameworks (cgs etc), while in economics, this is not the case? Perhaps a socio-psychological (behavioral) dimension should be added to the proposed analytical approach suggested by Brad and Rob. Warren Young ------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]