----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- Thanks to David Colander, Susan Feiner and Chas Anderson. To your main point that the present textbook confusions on ADAS are due to: (1) the market pressure (eg. non- specialist reviewers from CCs, high enrolments in the non- (economics) majors, say in business courses) and (2) attraction of this model for some teachers, administrators and students, I would like to add that there is also a widespread confusion about the nature of this model. I think that that has started when the neoclassicals, especially the monetarists, have accepted the Phillips curve. Recall the famous admission by a leading monetarist that we are all Keynesians now. Some of the leading neoclassical economists (one of them is a Nobel laureate and another is on the editorial boards of several leading professional journals) used to refer to the Phillips curve as the (inverted) aggregate supply curve in their scholarly and widely read publications. Somewhere in my 1991 paper in the Australian Economics Papers and also in my other publications I said that the Phillips curve is a price or wage setting/reaction equation where as the aggregate supply curve is a quantity response/reaction equation. Therefore they cannot be the same. In my view, in addition the factors you three have mentioned, it is this sort of confusion among the echelons of the profession that might have encouraged to rubber stamp the Phillips curve as the aggregate supply curve by the bulk of the profession. Bill Rao ------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]