In a message dated 2/1/03 1:42:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >> I've also heard that the New Keynesians accept a good deal
> >> of what the old Keyneisans and neo-Keynesians rejected,
>
>Alypius Skinner wrote:
> > What's the difference between a new Keynesian and a neo-Keynesian?
>
>Perhaps
>> I've also heard that the New Keynesians accept a good deal
>> of what the old Keyneisans and neo-Keynesians rejected,
Alypius Skinner wrote:
> What's the difference between a new Keynesian and a neo-Keynesian?
Perhaps a school goes from "new" to "neo-" when it becomes `Established'?
> Is econ
,
> I've also heard that the New Keynesians accept a good deal of what the old
> Keyneisans and neo-Keynesians rejected,
What's the difference between a new Keynesian and a neo-Keynesian? Is
economics suffering from a modifier shortage?
It seems fairly common in economics for anomalies to lead to
stagflation.
-Original Message-
From: fabio guillermo rojas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 5:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Economic anamolies and Kuhn
I'm teaching a course on the sociology of science and we read Kuhn's
structure of
In a message dated 1/30/03 6:17:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Can someone provide me an example of an anamoly from the recent history
>of
>economics that led to a fundamental change in economic theory?
>
>Fabio
I don't know if this qualifies, but when I learned Macro back in 1978 the
neo-K
Assymetric information? Lemon car markets & whatnot?
(Signalling models?) How fundamental is fundamental?
There is a game theory text that assumes a certain
amount of irrational behavior to obtain its results.
I can search the closet if you want.
Sorry I'm not more helpful,
jsh
--- fabio
I'm teaching a course on the sociology of science and we read Kuhn's
structure of scientific revolutions. FYI, Kuhn says that science is
characterized by "paradigms" - most science works from basic assumptions
justified by "model achievements." Scientific change occurs when anamolies
- observation
