Evan: Try Hicks (Sir John) Essays in Monetary Theory and also Leijonhufvud (Axel) in his Information and Coordination on what he calls the pre-Keynesian "Art of Central Banking" tradition. On Tue, 28 Mar 1995, Evan Jones - 448 - 3063 wrote: > Are there any experts out there on nineteenth century monetary > theory? > I'm trying to pursue the origins of the profound macro/micro > bifurcation in english-speaking mainstream economic thought and > policy, and have delved into unknown territory. > One can readily comprehend why there was no hope of coherent > development emanating from the micro side, once the neoclassical > engine was up and running. > But at the macro level, the Keynesians and the anti-Keynesians are > bipartisan in their contempt for structure (the 'microfoundations' > literature is a scandal). Keynes himself appears heavily to blame, not > least because, in spite of his much-vaunted knowledge of 'the City', > he seems content to base his conceptual framework on the piddling > Cambridge (Marshall) tradition, even though he simultaneously spent > much of his time ridiculing it. > What happends to the centre of gravity of monetary/banking ideas in > the transition from classical to neoclassical economics? Much of the > literature is too segmented - literature on the classics stops in > 1870s. > A book by Laidler (The Golden Age of the Quantity Theory) > neatly covers the transition, but it would be nice to get an opinion > from someone who doesn't think that progress in human civilisation is > to be measured in terms of how many souls swear fealty to the quantity > theory. Doesn't look optimistic - a perusal of the relevant library shelves >indicates that the > quantity theorists and the Chicago school appear to have become > near-hegemonic (helped along a little by funding by right-wing think > thanks). > Ddoes anybody know of some useful literature on the > topic? > Ultimately, I'm trying to find the origins of the mainstream macro detachment > from structural considerations. Does it start and end with the > proposition (a priori and heavily ideological) of the neutrality of > money? > Evan Jones >
