Bitte verwenden Sie diesen Link, um diese Publikation zu zitieren, oder auf sie als Internetquelle zu verweisen: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/300689 
Autor:innen: 
Erscheinungsjahr: 
2024
Schriftenreihe/Nr.: 
ZÖSS Discussion Paper No. 105
Verlag: 
Universität Hamburg, Zentrum für Ökonomische und Soziologische Studien (ZÖSS), Hamburg
Zusammenfassung: 
Controversy is vital in the pursuit of knowledge. Constructive dispute can drive intellectual growth and deepen understanding within a field. However, mutual respect, thorough engagement, and intellectual humility are necessary for productive exchanges. In this vein, I clarify in my response to Tom Palley's critique of my article that I did not argue against his claim regarding social conflict in Keynesian economics. However, I questioned whether social conflict is the sole ontological fault line, as Palley suggests. Additionally, I highlighted the distinction between Keynes' economics and Keynesian economics, challenging Palley's lumping them together as part of a liberal project. In conclusion, Palley's assertions regarding the absence of social conflict in Keynesian economics and its implications for economic laws lack foundation.
Schlagwörter: 
Keynes
social conflict
paradigm shift
JEL: 
A14
B40
B51
E11
E12
Dokumentart: 
Working Paper

Datei(en):
Datei
Größe
842.66 kB





Publikationen in EconStor sind urheberrechtlich geschützt.