Although it is possible to draw various purely technical distinctions between modern and pre-Keynesian economics, it is mainly with respect to matters of intellectual orientation that the two are strikingly different. Many and diverse reasons have been advanced to explain why this should be so, most of them plausible, all of them fairly elaborate. The purpose of this note is to add an element of unity and simplicity to these explanations by suggesting a straight-forward dynamical interpretation of the foundations of Keynesian and classical thought.

Journal Article Mr. Graaf's Producer-Consumer Theory: A Restatement and Correction Get access Robert W. Clower Robert W. Clower Oxford Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 20, Issue 1, 1952, Pages 84–85, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296165 Published: 01 January 1952

3.5 per cent of national income, while subtractions amount to only 0.4 per cent. (See p. I04.) 4. The so-called technical bias works both ways. It may result in some cases from greater detail of information for I937 than for I899the reason ascribed by Mr. Lebergott-but it results in many more cases simnply from greater diversification of products. High concentration is less indicative of monopoly for a product with many close substitutes than for one with few. In view of the vast proliferation of products and expansion of markets over the last half century, one may doubt the comparability of any specific measure of concentration as applied to both beginning and end of the period. As in the case of growth of output, no index can adequately reflect such qualitative factors. This is not to say that they should be overlooked. 5. The term slight is not used to describe the rise of 6 percentage points in the fraction of private income but the rise of i.9 percentage points in the fraction of national income. The former rise is characterized in my monograph as substantial, a fit counterpart for significant. (See p. 45.) Most of these issues are discussed in my monograph. I cannot agree with Mr. Lebergott that his criticisms fundamentally alter the picture of the growth of monopoly and concentration gathered from recent studies, such as those of Adelman, Stigler, and myself. Nevertheless, such criticisms are of inestimable importance in pointing out errors, no matter how minor they might seem; for the goal is to unearth facts, not to prove cases.

Robert W. Clower, Is There an Optimal Money Supply?, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 25, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the American Finance Association New York, N.Y. December, 28-30, 1969 (May, 1970), pp. 425-433