Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper offers a comparison of the macroeconomic views held by Wynne Godley and James Tobin. Both authors were more concerned than their contemporaries with monetary matters. Both authors contributed, in different ways, to the stock–flow consistent approach, with Tobin providing to Godley the portfolio analysis he was missing. Both authors held Keynesian policy positions, but both were accused at times of not being Keynesian enough. While Tobin stuck with Neoclassical theory, Godley rejected it as he could never make any sense of it. The differences between these two authors are particularly evident when dealing with the traverse of economic activity from the short run to the long run. The biggest difference has to do with their conceptions of banking: Tobin argued that banks are barely different from other financial intermediaries, essentially providing a portfolio choice, and ultimately he relies on a variable multiplier view tied to the fractional-reserve theory of banking; by contrast, Godley emphasized the credit-creating ability of banks and their essential role in an economy where production takes time and where inventories are needed, with central banks providing reserves on demand, at the interest rate of their choice, as argued by central bankers today.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".