Michael,
What you find in Chapter 21, Section IV of
the General Theory is indeed the AS/AD that
one finds in the textbooks, especially on pp. 300-303.
It is true that in this discussion he does not use
the terms "aggregate supply" and "aggregate demand"
which he does elsewhere in a different context. He
simply refers to the "elasticity of supply" and how
it varies as "output increases." His explanation of
why the elasticity goes from being infinite to zero
explicitly refers to "bottle-necks." This term appears
several times in the discussion. It is clear that the
changes in output are due to changes in "demand."
So, I remain curious. Exactly why is AS/AD analysis
inherently "anti-Keynesian"?
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 6:46 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:1001] Re: Re: Re: Re: intro macro text
>
>
>"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote:
>
>> Did the McKenna version resemble the current
>> standard formulation or the Davidson-Smolensky
>> formulation? Did it have any other odd particulars
>> to it?
>
>I don't know. David Collander told me.
>
>>
>> I disagree that AS/AD is inherently "anti-Keynesian."
>> For the umpteenth time, go look at Chapter 21, Section
>> IV of Keynes's General Theory.
>
>Oh, my God. I have been told umpteen times. How stupid of me.
>I said that Keynes used the words AS and AD, but not the AS/AD found in the
>textbooks.
>
>> There it is in a verbal
>> description, if not in a drawn graph, well before McKenna.
>> I have also noted that one can have a consistent
>> linkage between the K-cross and AS/AD if one does
>> the K-cross in purely nominal terms. One gets the
>> shift of AD out of the K-cross multiplier analysis. How
>> it breaks out between a price and output increase then
>> depends on the shape of the AS curve. I even do an
>> analysis of the multiplier that involves purely price increases
>> for the vertical AS zone case.
>> I may be more enamored of the
>> multiplier than many because I also teach Urban Economics,
>> where it is a very real phenomenon. I hear colleagues who
>> are using Mankiw and don't mind that he has relegated the
>> multiplier to a dinky box in the back because they think that
>> "there is no multiplier" and just shake my head. Sure as hell
>> is one out there, and I, for one, think students should know it.
>> Again, I think the "anti-Keynesian" implication comes
>> from assuming a vertical AS curve, not the use of AS/AD
>> itself, per se.
>> Barkley Rosser
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 12:32 PM
>> Subject: [PEN-L:980] Re: Re: intro macro text
>>
>> >The first book to have introduced AS-AD seems to have been. McKenna,
J.P.
>> 1955.
>> >Aggregate Economic Analysis, 1st ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
It
>> did
>> >not have much influence.
>> >
>> >"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote:
>> >
>> >> I note that the first people, after Keynes himself,
>> >> to use the terminology of aggregate supply and aggregate
>> >> demand were Paul Davidson and Eugene Smolensky in
>> >> their 1964 book, _Aggregate Supply and Demand Analysis_.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Yes, their's was different in that respect. They were not just trying
to
>> hoist
>> >macro onto a simple supply and demand curve. Keynes provided the
>> terminology,
>> >but the theory AS/AD is anti-Keynesian.
>> >
>> >
>> >> They followed the main Keynes version using Z-score functions
>> >> in a space of employment on the x-axis and revenue on the
>> >> y-axis. This, of course, resembles the "Keynesian cross,"
>> >> although not in its standard textbook Samuelsonian form.
>> >> It is not the same as the current AS/AD that has P on the y-axis.
>> >> But, as I have already noted, one can find that one in Chapter
>> >> 21 of Keynes's _General Theory_.
>> >> Barkley Rosser
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Keaney Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 2:30 AM
>> >> Subject: [PEN-L:964] intro macro text
>> >>
>> >> >Peter Dorman wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Stretton's book is interesting but very idiosyncratic -- not suitable
>> for
>> >> >the
>> >> >sort of course I want to teach. For me, there are two things I'm
trying
>> to
>> >> >accomplish, to improve student's understanding of how economies work,
>> and
>> >> to
>> >> >increase their ability to critique mainstream economics as an
>> intellectual
>> >> >and
>> >> >political force. That's why I'm happy to use an orthodox text, as
long
>> as
>> >> >it
>> >> >isn't too counterproductive pedagogically.
>> >> >
>> >> >MK writes: I'm not sure how Stretton does not fit your criteria. I
read
>> his
>> >> >book as trying to accomplish just those aims. And it would be a
strange
>> >> >orthodoxy that dispensed with AS/AD, as you would wish it to do. Of
>> course
>> >> >the content may be too broad in coverage for your purposes.
>> >> >
>> >> >In a recent RRPE John McDermott brought to attention Robert
Guttmann's
>> >> >neglected "How Credit-Money Shapes the Economy" (M.E. Sharpe, 1994).
>> While
>> >> >it's probably not at all what you are looking for, its treatment of
>> money
>> >> as
>> >> >endogenous enables Guttmann to offer a very good economic history of
the
>> US
>> >> >to the present. It's a lot more convincing than most macro.
>> >> >
>> >> >Michael K.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >Michael Perelman
>> >Economics Department
>> >California State University
>> >Chico, CA 95929
>> >
>> >Tel. 530-898-5321
>> >E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> >
>
>--
>Michael Perelman
>Economics Department
>California State University
>Chico, CA 95929
>
>Tel. 530-898-5321
>E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
