Classical economics versus Keynesian economics

By -
I am trying to make a summary table for teaching macroeconomics. This is simplified, of course, but useful still, I hope:
Classical Economics
Keynesian Economics
Say’s Law
Always holds.
Only holds when leakages do not exceed injections.
Unemployment
High unemployment is a structural problem.
High unemployment can come from insufficient aggregate demand.
Equilibrium
Markets equilibrate quickly.
Markets may equilibrate slowly.
In response to a supply or demand change…
A price change will produce a stable equilibrium.
The other curve may shift, producing a cascade of changes.
In response to a recession…
Let the market work things out.
The government should engage in stimulus spending.
Expectations
Market actors' expectations rapidly converge towards a stable equilibrium.
One group of market actors' expectations may affect another group's and that group's then affect the first one's so as to repeatedly destabilize the economy.



What other rows should I have?

Comments

  1. Lord10:16 PM

    Something about money but I hesitate to say what - money is a veil, stable and doesn't matter, money can be unstable and matters a great deal. Rational expectations vs irrational exuberance?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah3:04 AM

      Yes, Lord, there is certainly something about expectations I'm missing, and I think you are on the right track as to what it is.

      Delete
    2. gcallah3:53 AM

      I added an "expectations" row after thinking about your comment.

      Delete
  2. Samson Corwell12:58 PM

    Nix the "In response to a recession…" row. At that point they're no longer acting in the role of economist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah12:35 AM

      No, whether what you say is correct or not -- and I am largely on your side -- these fine distinctions don't belong in Macro I, and that row is crucial for making the whole study "relevant."

      Delete
    2. Samson Corwell6:41 AM

      At least change the color of the box backgrounds to match the alternating pattern.

      Why can't this distinction be made in economics?

      Delete
    3. gcallah9:16 AM

      Done.

      "Why can't this distinction be made in economics?"

      What are you talking about?!

      Delete
    4. Samson Corwell2:21 AM

      You said "these fine distinctions don't belong in Macro I". I don't see why that is the case. In fact, I think it would be probably be something important to emphasize given the number of people who walk away from economics with the idea that it's normative or some equally confused line of thought.

      Delete
    5. gcallah2:24 PM

      I'm happy if I can get them to remember who Keynes was and that he liked stimulus.

      Delete
  3. Samson Corwell1:57 PM

    You should fix the color of the second and third boxes in the sixth row. They aren't following the alternating pattern of light blue and dark blue.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more