PropertyValue
?:about
?:abstract
  • Controversy is vital in the pursuit of knowledge. Constructive dispute can drive intellectual growth and deepen understanding within a field. However, mutual respect, thorough engagement, and intellectual humility are necessary for productive exchanges. In this vein, I clarify in my response to Tom Palley's critique of my article that I did not argue against his claim regarding social conflict in Keynesian economics. However, I questioned whether social conflict is the sole ontological fault line, as Palley suggests. Additionally, I highlighted the distinction between Keynes' economics and Keynesian economics, challenging Palley's lumping them together as part of a liberal project. In conclusion, Palley's assertions regarding the absence of social conflict in Keynesian economics and its implications for economic laws lack foundation. (xsd:string)
?:contributor
?:dateModified
  • 2024 (xsd:gyear)
?:datePublished
  • 2024 (xsd:gyear)
?:duplicate
?:hasFulltext
  • true (xsd:boolean)
is ?:hasPart of
?:inLanguage
  • en (xsd:string)
?:issn
  • 1868-4947 ()
?:linksURN
?:location
is ?:mainEntity of
?:name
  • Dr. Palley and the merits of conflict (xsd:string)
?:provider
?:publicationType
  • Arbeitspapier (xsd:string)
?:sourceInfo
  • GESIS-SSOAR (xsd:string)
rdf:type
?:url
?:urn
  • urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-95305-2 ()
?:volumeNumber
  • 105 (xsd:string)