A reply to Amitava Dutt: the role of aggregate demand in the long run
回应Dutt对作者1999年论文的评论，讨论总需求是否影响长期均衡，指出古典-马克思主义与后凯恩斯主义视角的根本分歧，并解决哈罗德不稳定问题。
In an article in this journal, Amitava Dutt comments on our 1999 paper, ‘Being Keynesian in the Short Term and Classical in the Long Term: The Traverse to Classical Long-term Equilibrium’, contending that aggregate demand may affect the long-term equilibrium. We agree to some extent but contend that these mechanisms do not question the fundamental difference between the classical-Marxian perspective (in which u gravitates in the long term around <mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="true">ˉ</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:math>uˉ ) and the post-Keynesian perspective (in which the long-term equilibrium position of u depends on the level of aggregate demand). The basic controversy harks back to Harrod’s investment function, in which the only long-term equilibrium is u = <mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="true">ˉ</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:math>uˉ . We solve the problem of Harrodian instability in reference to the action of monetary authorities and governments. Dutt’s defence of the post-Keynesian investment function is unconvincing.