Here is Steve Keen’s lecture at April 2012 INET conference,
HT “Lord Keynes;” here is Keen on his presentation.
On Twitter, I ask what differences there are between modern Post-Keynesians and those who came between the late 1930s through to the early 1980s. But, almost immediately after asking, I realized my question is both unfair and uninformed. My introduction to Post-Keynesian economics is through Lachmann (apart from what I read on the different Post-Keynesian blogs I visit), but Lachmann’s own interest in Post-Keynesian economics was selective.
Take, for instance, two economists he cites in The Market as an Economic Process: Shackle (13 citations, according to the index) and Hicks (19 citations). Both were students at the LSE — and, to one degree or another, influenced by Hayekian capital theory — during the 1930s, during which time Lachmann was a research assistant to Hayek. Kaldor (3) was also at the LSE, and at one time also supported Hayekian capital theory. I am not as familiar with the economics of Victoria Chick, another post-Keynesian Lachmann cites (twice) in his third and last book, but it seems to me that he accepts her ideas when they support his (that production takes place over time) — the second citation is about her interpretation of Keynes in light of the topic of fixprice systems, but he does not really elucidate (he just says that Chick and Hicks are on “opposite sides of the spectrum”). In fact, where Lachmann is the most post-Keynesian is where he endorses their “fixprice” theory of price setting. Otherwise, he uses post-Keynesian references to back up ideas that are broadly compatible with Austrian theory (disequilibrium, uncertainty, expectations, et cetera). (Other Post-Keynesians and Neo-Ricardians he cites are Pierangelo Garegnani [once — on the “normal rate of profit,” of which Lachmann is critical, considering it an exercise in “objective,” not subjective, economics], Jan Kregel [twice — on expectations and their use in The General Theory; in the case of the latter, in support of Lachmann’s critical observations of their use in Keynes’ 1936 book], Joan Robinson [4 — one of which is used to support his criticism of Garegnani], and Piero Sraffa .)
My point — the above digression aside — is that Lachmann’s presentation of Post-Keynesianism is not comprehensive, and I deduced from it the idea that at first Post-Keynesians were closer to Austrians during the 1960s and 1970s. It follows, from my error, that modern Post-Keynesianism deviated from those of the 1970s. This was my mistake: Shackle and Hicks do not represent the entirety of the Post-Keynesian school.
If you watch the Keen video closely, I think you can see a number of similarities between the Minskyite theory of instability presented by Keen and Austrian theory. There are, of course, important differences: such as the Post-Keynesian emphasis on the importance of effective (aggregate) demand, for one, and price theory. But, it goes to show that Post-Keynesian economics warrant a very close look.
Some broad similarities that I caught: (1) the idea that “debt-based” money economies require a constantly increasing volume of debt (credit or fiduciary media) to maintain; (2) that most income is spent on consumption and investment is financed out of debt (seems to support the “great stagnation” thesis, to some degree); (3) that the monetary aggregate most affected during recessions is M1, or credit.