Suchergebnisse

Introduction -- 1. The Keynesian liquidity trap: an Austrian critique / Peter Boettke and Patrick Newman -- 2. What the entrepreneurial problem reveals about Keynesian macroeconomics / Per L. Bylund -- 3. A critique of two key concepts in Keynesian textbooks / Tim Congdon -- 4. The misdirection of Keynesian aggregates for understanding monetary and cyclical processes / Richard M. Ebeling -- 5. Cycles and slumps in an overly aggregated theoretical framework / Roger W. Garrison -- 6. The problems with Keynesianism: a view from Austrian capital theory / Steven Horwitz -- 7. The dangers of Keynesian economics / Steven Kates -- 8. The problem of Keynesian aggregation / Arnold Kling -- 9. What's wrong with Keynesian economists? / Art Laffer -- 10. Capital, saving and employment / George Reisman -- 11. What's wrong with Keynesian economics? / David Simpson -- 12. Move over keynes: replacing Keynesianism with a better model / Mark Skousen -- 13. The conclusive fault line in Keynesian economics / Peter Smith.

One of the reasons which make the Keynesian controversy still so live, is the missing distinction between aspects concerning methodology and others pertaining to theory. Another cause of the ongoing debate is to be found in unsettled problems concerning methodology, in primis the concept the equilibrium. Nor could the situation have been different, given, on the one hand, Keynes's manifest disaffection with these matters (especially in The General Theory) and, on the other hand, their implications as regards Keynesian economic theory and policy. The aim of this volume ensues from this analysis; accordingly, a wide spectrum of questions of method are considered and different interpretations of Keynes's approach in this field are taken into consideration.

Multiple criticisms of John Maynard Keynes' macroeconomic theories appeared between the mid-1960s, when dissident schools of economic theory & research consolidated their prominence at the Department of Economics of the University of Chicago & other institutional sites of economic research & writing (Delazay & Garth, 2002), & the early 1980s, when these views & theories became internalized in governmental & non-profit institutions & dominated journalistic writing & public opinion at large (Lind, 1996). The Keynesian economic model was criticized on a number of points: for stressing the demand side of the economy, for being too short term in its perspective, for disregarding agents' rational expectations. It was criticized for being a 'closed-system' & for depending too much on fixed exchange rates & on stable global costs such as oil prices. In terms of policy, it was suspected that Keynesian economic theory was subject to or even inclined towards irresponsible misuse-e.g. the ill-timed & excessively stimulative use of specific economic policy instruments within a 'political business cycle'-& it was criticized for being too dependent on monetary preconditions. In response to these criticisms, I will simply call attention to two aspects of Keynesian economics that would support contemporary or prospective economic & financial policies in a Keynesian perspective. Adapted from the source document.

The article written by the prominent thinker in Post Keynesian economic theory examines the main contribution to macroeconomics made by the group of scientists aimed at resurrecting the forgotten aspects of J. M. Keynes' legacy. The author considers interrelations between fundamental uncertainty, non-neutrality of money and the role of forward contracts in the economy, thus suggesting an original approach to macroeconomic analysis.

This paper scrutinizes the debate of Keynes and Hayek concerning the adequate re- sponse to economic crises from a historical perspective. In a first step the develop- ment of the Keynesian economic theory, its ascent during the Great Depression and its use during financially sound times is analyzed. In a second step the Hayekian cri- tique to discretionary government intervention and its long run consequences is scru- tinized. In the last step it is analyzed why, in the wake of a crisis, short-run oriented Keynesian therapy dominates long-run Hayekian therapy as in the most recent crisis.

This paper scrutinizes the debate of Keynes and Hayek concerning the adequate re- sponse to economic crises from a historical perspective. In a first step the develop- ment of the Keynesian economic theory, its ascent during the Great Depression and its use during financially sound times is analyzed. In a second step the Hayekian cri- tique to discretionary government intervention and its long run consequences is scru- tinized. In the last step it is analyzed why, in the wake of a crisis, short-run oriented Keynesian therapy dominates long-run Hayekian therapy as in the most recent crisis.