In a message dated 1/30/03 6:17:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Can someone provide me an example of an anamoly from the recent history >of >economics that led to a fundamental change in economic theory? > >Fabio
I don't know if this qualifies, but when I learned Macro back in 1978 the neo-Keynesians taught us that you couldn't have inflation and more than frictional unemployment in the same economy. They tried to explain away the obvious existence of both in the US economy with the "cost-push" inflation in which increases in the cost of some commodity (mostly oil) and labor (due to labor union power) could cause an increase in the general weighted-average level of prices, but that's arthimetically impossible. Though I understand that mainstream economics has begun to coalesce around New Keynesian macro, I've also heard that the New Keynesians accept a good deal of what the old Keyneisans and neo-Keynesians rejected, so that the evidence of the 1970s may have caused a fundamental shift in macro paradigms. DBL
