Comment on Fred Zaman on 'Rethinking Keynes’ non-Euclidian theory of the economy'
Blog-Reference
Perhaps we agree on the following.
The neoclassical approach is inadmissible. This needs no further elaboration because enlightened Neoclassicals have already abandoned it.
The Keynesian approach is inadmissible because it is formally defective. The proof has been given in (2013).
The heterodox camp has unearthed many flaws of standard economics but failed to develop an alternative that satisfies scientific standards, i.e. material and formal consistency.
Even Paul Schächterle's fresh theory of the labor market can give us not much impetus because he overlooked that it is well-known textbook stuff (Samuelson and Nordhaus, 1998, p. 229, Fig. 13-4).
As an old Viennese saying goes: the situation is hopeless, but not serious.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
References
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2013). Why Post Keynesianism is Not Yet a Science. Economic Analysis and Policy, 43(1): 97–106. URL
Samuelson, P. A., and Nordhaus, W. D. (1998). Economics. Boston, MA, Burr Ridge, etc.: Irwin, McGraw-Hill, 16th edition.