In a message dated 2/1/03 1:42:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> I've also heard that the New Keynesians accept a good deal > >> of what the old Keyneisans and neo-Keynesians rejected, > >Alypius Skinner wrote: > > What's the difference between a new Keynesian and a neo-Keynesian? > >Perhaps a school goes from "new" to "neo-" when it becomes `Established'?
When I first took economics back in 1978 the reigning school appeared to have switched from using the unmodified label "Keynesian" to "neo-Keynesian," which mostly seemed to mean that they were trying to use "cost-push inflation" theory resucitate Keynesian theory from its obvious failure to allow for stagflation. In my PhD Macro class last semester the professor and Snowden's book used the term "New Keynesians" to refer to the current inheritors of Keyenes. Snowden also uses the term "post-Keynesians" to describe a somewhat different group. I also recall now that when I took master's level econometrics back in 1990 my instructor, a PhD candidate, called himself a post-Keynesian. He described the difference between a neo-Keynesian this way: where Paul Samuelson had written "two cheers, but not three, for free markets" in the econ text book I'd used in 1978, the post-Keynesians say, "one cheer for free markets." David
