Abstract
In this paper I evaluate the logical consistency of Patinkin's claim that involuntary unemployment can result from slow speed of adjustment. I argue that Patinkin's argument is flawed because of an unjustified breach of continuity in the trade technology assumption between the microeconomic and the macroeconomic parts of Money, Interest, and Prices. Finally, I claim that the issue of flexibility versus rigidity should be linked to the trade technology assumption. As soon as a centralized trade technology is assumed, flexibility automatically comes in.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
