2 
a"long term equilibrium" which evidently is meant to be 
indpendent of whatever happens in the short run ( see p.5: 
"fluctuations in aggregate demand have no role to play 
in the definition of long period positions of the economy".) 
To my mind this long period position is a truly mythical concept 
It is stated that the"actuel position of the economy " 
will not ever get very close to the "relevant long term position 
How would one get at it statistically? Or in any way at all? 
I can't guess. 
Finally I want to ask a rather unkind question. If neoRicardians 
ever contemplate practical problems of economic policy 
in terms of their theory, do they find it very easy 
to differentiate themselves from the neo-classicists whom 
they attack so strongly on a purely theoretical plane? 
Does not the exclusion of the effective demand from the 
long term theory bring them into close vicinity of the 
supply siders? And if long term unemployment is not a matter 
of effective demand (which"has no role to play" ) are 
t^e neo Ricardians not in close company with those 
(including Ricardo himself and for all I know also Marx) 
who maintain that it is due to high wages? Finally, is the 
concept of a long term position which is independent of 
short term events ( including, I suppose, fiscal or monetary 
and other policy measures) not very much in line with 
the rational expectationists view that economic policy does 
not matter in the long run because the economy goes its 
own way and is only temporarily perturbed by what the 
economic policy makers do?