Keynesian/Neo-Keynesian Micro and Macro Textbook Recommendations? Beginner

**Marshall** · 03-26-2012, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by Economists

The whole schools of different schools of thoughts in main-stream macroeconomics is a lot of non-sense. There isn't as much focus on it within the present as whats presented to ordinary public. A lot of what exists today is methodological and not ideological. I find this to be one of the best discussions on divide, but you need to have seen some grad macro to probably understand it.
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/wp/wp664.pdf

Its not non-sense although you're totally right that's its exaggerated by mainstream media. The fact of the matter, though, is that some people fundamentally disagree about the direction (methodologically) we should be taking--and that affects the perceived value of people's research. From some seminars with saltwater and freshwater people I know this is an issue.

I think the paper you site gives a good example of the saltwater criticism that keynesian/neo-keynesian observations are structural (properties of the modeling technique and not of economies) and "are inconsistent with microeconomic evidence." Neo-Keynesian's and behavioral economists for that matter generally argue, in contrast, that they whether they jibe with microeconomic evidence or not doesn't matter since individuals are irrational, and individuals are especially irrational in a crisis. Of course, most economists don't represent either of these extreme points of view (except Krugman and Lucas) and fall somewhere in the middle, and I agree the opinions of most were steadily converging, but I think post crisis we've seen abundant evidence that they have not yet converged.

In any case, OP I think yankeefan put it best that these differences don't exist until you're well past the intro to Micro level. All economists agree with the stuff taught in intro level classes. They just don't all agree about where to go from there.