Haha! I had an instance of "momentary dyslexia" and read that as "John Coltrane". I do, however, find it interesting that Keynesians are now focusing upon periods that are the bulwark of the Austrian criticisms. That's certainly an achievement in and of itself, especially considering the deviations regarding methodology. Essentially, you guys are taking the opposing defense in response to criticisms from the Austrian school. Certainly, there is no other reason that you would focus strictly upon these periods; certainly the neo-classicals weren't pushing upon them specifically. I almost feel giddy.
I don't feel like I'm "responding to criticisms" so much as "addressing misconceptions", but take it how you will. If 1946 and 1921 are your bulwarks that's unfortunate for you all.I'm also not sure this is true of Keynesians generally.
John Cochrane is a Keynesian? What?
No, not at all.Is that your confusion Joseph?
No, I'm not Joseph. I'm just some anonymous commenter (well, I know you don't like us) who hasn't commented much before, but I was struck by Joseph's remark because I was unable to indentify any logical connection to the posted link.
Right - I know you're not Joseph. I was wondering if that was why he thought Keynesians are preoccupied with this.
Thanks for posting this. That Klein paper will be a good read.
All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.
Daniel Kuehn is a doctoral candidate and adjunct professor in the Economics Department at American University. He has a master's degree in public policy from George Washington University.