In recent years 90 per cent of American Economists have stopped being ‘Keynesian economists’ or ‘anti-Keynesian economists’. Instead they have worked toward a synthesis of whatever is valuable in older economics and in modern theories of income determination. The result might be called neoclassical economics and is accepted in its broad outlines by all but about 5 per cent of extreme left wing and right wing writers.
KeywordsDepression Europe Income Schizophrenia Milton
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Friedman, M. 1957. A Theory of the Consumption Function. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
- Hansen, A. 1949. Monetary Theory and Fiscal Policy. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Lucas, R. and Sargent, T. 1983. After Keynesian macroeconomics. In After the Phillips Curve: Persistence of High Inflation and High Unemployment, Federal Reserve of Boston.Google Scholar
- Modigliani, F. 1980. Collected Papers. Vol. 1: Essays in Macroeconomics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Modigliani, F. and Brumberg, R. 1954. Utility analysis and the consumption function: an interpretation of cross section data. In Post-Keynesian Economics, ed. K.K. Kurihara, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
- Patinkin, D. 1948. Price flexibility and full employment. American Economic Review 38, September, 543–64.Google Scholar
- Patinkin, D. 1956. Money, Interest and Prices. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
- Phelps, E. 1972. Inflation Policy and Unemployment Theory. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Samuelson, P. 1951. Principles and rules in modern fiscal policy: a neoclassical reformulation. In Money, Trade and Economic Growth: Essays in Honor of John Henry Williams, ed. H.L. Waitzman, New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Samuelson, P. 1955. Economics. 3rd edn, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar