You and I had articles appear in a recent volume of Critical Review, so I was naturally drawn to your piece in JEP on "The Triumph of Monetarism." My paper in CR was entitled, "An Ultra-Keynesian Strikes Back," so you'll not be surprised if I chide you for being much too kind to the monetarists. Here are my reasons in brief:(posted 8751 days ago)1) Monetarism without stable velocity is a very pale version of the original doctrine, and your figure 1 is much more damaging to the creed than you allow; and
2) The natural rate hypothesis is badly out of wack with both the recent experience of the U.S. and Europe, where prices should have fallen throughout much of the 1980's and 1990's. Of course, one can say the curve has shifted, but, by now, this strategy seems rather desperate.
Have you read Nicholas Kaldor's ill-tempered little book, "The Scourge of Monetarism"? I realize the hyperbole may be annoying, but his critique of Friedman and his account of an endogenous money supply have, so far as I'm aware, never been addressed by the monetarists. When you say that Classic Monetarism has achieved an "intellectual hegemony," you are talking about a small empire, one that does not even span the other articles in the very same volume of JEP in which your article appears. If Solow is outside the fold, then one can imagine a great many more, especially outside the U.S.
Well, thanks for listening.
Greg Contributed by Greg Hill (Greg.Hill@ci.seattle.wa.us) on April 7, 2000.