Rejoinder to Rosser, O'Donnell, and Carrión Álvarez and Ehnts on their criticisms of my ergodic/nonergodic formulation of Keynes's concept of an actuarial certain future vs. an uncertain future

Paul Davidson

Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 2016, vol. 39, issue 3, 308-333

Abstract: This article provides my responses to recent criticisms of my argument associating Keynes’s concept of uncertainty with Keynes’s explicit statement that in our world of experience applying the “probability calculus” to historic data does not produce actuarial certain knowledge of future economic outcomes. Furthermore I have tried to explain, using Keynes’ own written statements how Keynes’s General Theory differs from old classical theory, new classical theory, Samuelson’s Keynesian Theory, and New Keynesian Theory.

Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01603477.2016.1203728 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:mes:postke:v:39:y:2016:i:3:p:308-333

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/MPKE20

DOI: 10.1080/01603477.2016.1203728

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Post Keynesian Economics from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().