Search

Certain post-Keynesian (PK) authors consider Means as one of the founding figures of PK theory and a notable contributor to heterodox economic thought in general. Paradoxically, many surveys of PK economics do not mention his name at all. It is the purpose of the current study to scrutinize the possible reasons behind the contradictory evaluations of Means’ contributions among PK authors. Based on a critical analysis of his stance on Keynesian and political economics traditions as well as his labor analysis, I argue that Means’ ideas and PK theory remain in harmony on the surface but conflict at a more fundamental level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The supermultiplier model is gaining momentum. To become a cornerstone of modern macroeconomics, it should explain the dynamics of advanced market economies in a coherent, complete, and simple way. In particular, it is supposed to clarify the possibilities and limits of credit-driven economies, like the one observed in most advanced countries after 1995. This paper contributes to these goals by integrating the Sraffian supermultiplier with the post-Keynesian hypothesis of credit money endogeneity. This hypothesis is somehow modified when autonomous banks are able to accelerate credit above output growth, as happened after 2002. The gap between credit and output growth implies that a part of the loans is financing non-output transactions (land, old houses, shares), usually with a speculative bias. The consequences of a persistent gap are demand depression and asset inflation, as we observed after 2008. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While modeling macroeconomic interactions, post-Keynesians propose rationales to verbally motivate the choice of behavioral equations. This informal approach to microfoundation results in inconsistencies and fuzzy arguments. The rationales for different behavioral rules are mutually inconsistent, require strong and nontransparent assumptions, or refer to highly endogenous variables that are not part of the model. The postulated behavioral rules are invariant to endogenous changes in the microenvironment, whereas the rationales imply that they adjust endogenously. The prevailing assumption of purely backward-looking expectations is neither theoretically nor empirically satisfying. The article concludes that revisiting the issue of microfoundation within the post-Keynesian framework may be a rewarding line of research. Furthermore, post-Keynesians should be open to various microfoundations as long as models feature the core of post-Keynesian theory—the principle of effective demand. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]