At 02:25 PM 6/8/00 -0700, you wrote:
>"The usual propositions of the standard story about Phillips are that:
>
> 1. Phillips had no adequate theory;
> 2. Phillips was ignorant of inflationary expectations;
> 3. Phillips confused real and nominal wages;
> 4. Phillips implicitly advocated that tolerating permanently high
> levels of inflation could permanently solve unemployment.
>
>"The evidence can sustain none of these propositions, but evidence is
>sometimes not required to sustain received textbook opinion.
so points (1) through (4) are the myths you were fighting, Tom?
It's a little strange that you now come off _defending_ the Phillips Curve
against its monetarist and new classical detractors.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
