Kasz216 said:
No. All 3 aren't purley Macroeconomic views. They are economic theories in general. For both Macro and Micro economics. After WW2 the Macroeconomic views were absorbed with Neoclassical views. Largely the Macreoeconomist views of Keynsians are never widely accepted because they have no microeconomic basis. Neo-Classical Syntehsis tried to happen to provide Keynsian economics with that base. Additionally New Keynsian economics have tried to provide a microeconomic base actually using congruent theories. You really need to define what kind of Keynesian you are... for what it's worth... New Keynesian's would actually disagree with you. So I hope it's not them.
|
Microeconomics are concerend with the economics of ONE good or at most, industry.
Ceteris paribus, when you have a supply and demand curve of apples, and increase the price of apples, you keep the price of oranges the same.
Aggregate supply and demand curve of macroeconomists, increase the AGGREGATE price level. They look at the AGGREGATE economy. The entire thing. It's not at all microeconomics.
Dude, GEORGE W. FUCKING BUSH, engaged in Keyensian economics *bangs head*
You know? That huge ass stimulus package. Oh, no, Bush is obviously a "liberal".
I mean, for christ sakes, lowering the tax to increase spending itself is a Keyensian belief.
I believe in:
Stick Wages
MPC
... dunno, don't need anymore than that.









