tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post3529672685635255843..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: What unique insights did Keynes provide in the General Theory?Evanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-57080666599843635582013-01-27T13:11:01.060-05:002013-01-27T13:11:01.060-05:00As the founder of macro, I would say it is his foc...As the founder of macro, I would say it is his focus on the whole and how that whole was more than the sum of its parts, when ceteris paribus fails and the system must be examined as a whole and the interactions between its parts, and that the system is not necessarily driven toward equilibrium and it is not necessarily unique. I am not speaking as a historian though. Lordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06747994571555237739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-16354259915836470602013-01-27T09:56:14.729-05:002013-01-27T09:56:14.729-05:00I have posted a comment over at Jonathan Finegold ...I have posted a comment over at Jonathan Finegold Catalan's blog-post.<br /><br />http://www.economicthought.net/blog/?p=3742#comment-779734527<br /><br />Mr. Kuehn, you failed to mention Keynes's own unique contribution to his own magnum opus...his 1921 book, <i>A Treatise on Probability</i>. But regarding the "operationalization" of the GT...<br /><br />Dr. Michael Emmett Brady has pointed to the Hicks/Keynes correspondence in Volume XIII and Volume XIV of the CWJMK before. I recommend reading Chapter 16 of this anthology on Sir John R. Hicks, edited by Dr. K. Puttaswamaiah.<br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=inpa94-L1o8C<br /><br />Chapter 16 of this Hicks anthology was originally published in an issue of the <i>Indian Journal of Applied Economics</i> (which is now the <i>International Journal of Applied Economics and Econometrics</i>, and edited by yes, Dr. K. Puttaswamaiah). Dr. Brady has suggested elsewhere that the reason Keynes "went along" with Hicks's IS-LM model despite being only "half-right" is because Keynes realised that the mathematical training for economists in the 1930ies was not very good (Dennis Robertson admits this in his correspondence with J.M. Keynes, and Sir Ralph G. Hawtrey's mathematical training seems to have rusted - see Hawtrey's article "Keynes and Supply Functions" for reference).<br /><br />Finally Mr. Kuehn, as I have stated before to you, over and over again...<br /><br />Read Dr. Michael Emmett Brady's 1994, 1995, and 1996 <i>History of Economics Review</i> articles on the mathematical formulations found in <i>The General Theory</i>. Here are the citations (done in Chicago style...what reference style do you use anyway?) again for your reference...<br /><br />Brady, Michael Emmett. "Keynes, Pigou and the supply side of the General Theory." <i>History of Economics Review</i> 21 (1994): 34-46.<br /><br />Brady, Michael Emmett. "A Study of J.M. Keynes’ Marshallian-Pigouvian Elasticity Approach in Chapter 20 and 21 of the GT." <i>History of Economics Review</i> 24 (1995): 55-71.<br /><br />Brady, Michael Emmett. "A Comparison-Contrast of J.M. Keynes’ Mathematical Modeling Approach in the <i>General Theory</i> with some of his <i>General Theory</i> Interpreters, especially J.E. Meade." <i>History of Economics Review</i> 25 (1996): 129-159.Blue Aurorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02044362251868221897noreply@blogger.com