Sunday, January 27, 2013

Kan't forget Kalecki

I put Kalecki in the "simultaneous discovery" category rather than the predecessor category, but he needs to be noted in light of the last post. Kalecki is right there with Hicks as a guy that could have been Keynes if there was no Keynes.

Kaleckian models are also a good illustration of my point in the last post about the difference between a theory and a model. If you figure that many models can operationalize Keynes's theory, Kaleckian models are also good competitors with Hicksian (and for that matter New Keynesian models) as an operationalization of the foundational Keynesian theory.

Kaleckian models are very good for thinking about the macroeconomics of income distribution. They're also good at operationalizing Keynes's idea that wage cuts are not always the answer, because these models allow for what is called "wage led" and "profit led" growth.


  1. As I have stated before, there are faults in Michal Kalecki's economic models, and the Kaleckians who followed thereafter in his name. Kalecki's acceptance of the limiting frequency approach to probability makes his models more restrictive than Keynes's. Keynes uses a Boole-derived "interval estimate approach" to probability, which is less restrictive and thus more general.

    1. In short: he fails the test of agreeing completely with the Honorable and Anointed Doctor Michale Emmett Brady, He who is Highest, King of Kings, blessed be his name--and is therefore not capable of providing any insight!!!

      In general, I would caution against following the protocols of cults when conducting study of the world. It leads sooner or later to bad results.

    2. Will: Just because I agree with Dr. Brady on a lot of things, doesn't mean I agree with him on everything. Nor does it mean that I'm a cult follower of him. The same would apply to Hyman P. Minsky, who has a lot of followers. It doesn't mean that Minsky's followers would agree with him on everything...

  2. What's most interesting about Kalecki and Keynes's simultaneous discovery (although Malthus and others had really gotten there earlier, if you ask me) is that they were coming from completely different theoretical directions. The time was ripe with the idea of effective demand, whether one was Marshallian or Marxian.


All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.