ABSTRACT
The three papers collected here criticize the rational expectations school on three different grounds. Kregel takes up their inadequate understanding of Keynes, and consequently of monetary equilibrium, arguing that the chief difference is not in the notion of expectations but in the underlying model. Cherry, Clawson and Dean show that natural rate of unemployment models all rely on ad hoc assumptions about differential rates of response to economic changes, as between different groups of economic agents. Their assumptions have no foundation in theory, but are essential to the conclusions. Finally, Handa shows that a more reasonable rational expectations approach would allow for differences in theoretical understanding of the economy. Some groups would expect the economy to behave according to neoclassical theory, others according to post-Keynesian or Marxist, etc. Under these circumstances, the conservative conclusions would not follow.
