I think I have this about straightened out, except for the original question, who coined "macroeconomics" (or "macro-economics")? Fonseca's claim that Frisch did based on his nomenclaturizing tendencies does not suffice without either printed evidence, still not seen, or someone remembering hearing him using the term verbally, quite possible. After all, that was Samuelson's original thought, that it was Frisch. If nothing else comes up on that one, then Kevin Hoover's posing of J.M. Fleming (sp?) in 1938 with "macro-economic" seems to be first, ahead of Lindahl's 1939 doing so, given that his doing so seems to be fresh in that book and not coming from the 1930 Swedish version of the second chapter of that book, even though Samuelson said it was Lindahl. Regarding "macrodynamic," or "macro-dynamic," I am now inclined to think that was Frisch and not Kalecki. Kalecki did use "macrodynamic" in the title of his 1935 Econometrica paper, which in turn was based on earlier French and Polish language versions of that paper. But I have reason to believe that Kalecki picked the term up from Frisch at the Sept. 29, 1933 Leyden meeting of the Econometric Society. Here are two papers presented at that conference. "Some problems in economic macrodynamics," R. Frisch (no hyphen, in contrast to his famous essay of that year, quoted here earlier). "Essai d'une theorie des mouvements cyclique construite a l'aide de la mathematique superieure," M. Kalecki. The original Polish version was published in 1933 as "Proba teorii koniunktury," Warsaw: ISBCP, translated as "Essay in Business Cycle Theory," and appearing in the 1990 vol. 1 of his collected work, edited by Ostriansky. Several accounts of the 1933 meeting report that Kalecki commented critically on Frish's approach. Whereas Frisch saw shocks as coming exogenously, with autocorrelations keeping them going, Kalecki saw them as endogenous, although his early formulations had some mathematical problems. However, he later used lags and nonlinearities to get the effect he wanted, with there being a deep divide between them that reflects differences between classical and Keynesian views on this. Some sources on some of this, although there are other papers, are a long and excellent recent one by Daniele Besomi, presented in 2005 at a conference in Belgium, "Formal modeling vs. insight in Kalecki's theory of business cycles." This matter is also discussed in Malcolm Sawyer, "Kalecki on the trade cycle and growth," in _An Alternative Macroeconomic Theory: The Kaleckian Model and Post-Keynesian Economics_, ed. by John King, 1996, Kluwer,pp. 93-114. Anyway, it looks to me like Kalecki got the term from Frisch, even as he used it in a significantly different way. Barkley Rosser