You can get the slides for the talk here.
Marc Lavoie is the author of these important books (one with Wynne Godley) on Post Keynesian economics:
Lavoie, Marc. 1994. Foundations of Post-Keynesian Economic Analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Godley, W. and M. Lavoie. 2007. Monetary Economics: An Integrated Approach to Credit, Money, Income, Production and Wealth. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, England and New York.
Lavoie, Marc. 2009. An Introduction to Post-Keynesian Economics (rev. edn), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
LK: Apropos of your ongoing price theory quest (albeit less so re: the above post), I found another article you might enjoy, assuming you haven't already seen it.
ReplyDeletePricing decisions and the neoclassical theory of the firm, by Mike R. Lucas (2003)
It describes the commonly acknowledged "reality gap" between the major pricing paradigms, dividing them into "economist" and "accountant" camps, the former being the neoclassical and the latter including post Keynesian thought. It seems a pretty thorough summary of the debate up to the present, and though Lucas is clearly trying to be even-handed about it, I can't help but read it as another feather in the post-Keynesian cap. For instance, it's noted that in order to overcome issues related to avoidable costs, neoclassical pricing models become far more complex than anything firms actually incorporate, as we've seen by the various survey studies you've discussed. (It seems reminiscent of the issue of individual optimization vs. satisficing, come to think of it.)
The neoclassical response is a classic 'as if' argument. They say: "Yeah, well maybe you're implicitly doing our thing instead, without realizing it!" So, to defend a paradigm based on actors' subjective preferences and decision making, they deny the capacity to actually make the decisions people think they've made.