Thomas I. Palley, “The Limits of Minsky’s Financial Instability Hypothesis as an Explanation of the Crisis,” Monthly Review 61.11 (April, 2010).In his article, Thomas Palley reviews four explanations of the crisis, as follows:
John Bellamy Foster and Robert W. McChesney, “Listen Keynesians, It’s the System! Response to Palley,” Monthly Review 61.11 (April, 2010).
(1) Minsky’s financial instability hypothesis (as argued by Jan Kregel, Charles Whalen, and L. Randall Wray);Palley’s “structural Keynesian” view also incorporates the Minsky’s financial instability hypothesis, but looks at longer economic factors from the 1970s that have encouraged neoliberal bubble economics. Once we consider the dynamics of debt deflation as argued by Steve Keen and Richard Koo, Palley’s view of the crisis is an interesting interpretation.
(2) the structural Keynesian view of Palley himself(1);
(3) the new Marxist view of Foster and McChesney(2), and
(4) the social structure of accumulation (SSA) view of Kotz(3).
(1) Thomas I. Palley, “America’s Exhausted Growth Paradigm,” Chronicle of Higher Education (April 11, 2008); and Thomas I. Palley, “America’s Exhausted Paradigm: Macroeconomic Causes of the Financial Crisis and the Great Recession,” New America Foundation (July 22, 2009), http://newamerica.net
(2) John Bellamy Foster and Robert W. McChesney, “Monopoly-Finance Capital and the Paradox of Accumulation,” Monthly Review 61.5 (October, 2009), 1–20.
(3) David M. Kotz, “The Financial and Economic Crisis of 2008,” Review of Radical Political Economics 41.3 (2009): 305–317.