|
| quote: | Originally posted by d-miurge
I'm actually not a neo-keynesian or so. I just consider J. M. Keynes as an important man of the past century. By the way, there are no "Friedmanian" major trend in economics, that's a sign.
|
Yea I don't really care if you are neo-keynesian or not it was just a joke. But what do you mean by major "trend" in economics? Is the Chicago School and monetarism not a major trend? And what would that be a sign of exactly?
| quote: |
I could define my approach of economics as a mix between liberalism and keynesianism.
Sometimes there is no miracle drug, the microeconomic approach - on which the monetarism is based - is only a normative model, an ideal type à la Max Weber. |
I'm sorry but that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. Wouldn't Keynesian theory, endorsing the end all be all solution to economic distress (by influencing aggregate demand and the ability for governments to effectively control aggregate demand) be the "miracle drug" that you are speaking of? So the rejection of monetarism, which rejects the more aggressive keynesian approach (due to the faults of recognition lag, implementation lag, and impact lag that are more prevalent in Keynesian thoery) in favor of a more laissez faire approach to simply increase the money supply with population, as being a "miracle drug" seems somewhat contradictory. I'm curious to see what your mix of liberalism and keynesianism policy entails however.
___________________
Retro ...
|
)
