<p>I think "Macroeconomics in a Global Economy", by Sachs and Larrain is a good reference for you. It has a lot more math in it and a great exposition of the IS-LM model.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-04T18:39:36.003Z
honestly can't figure out why this has been downvoted, it`s a solid textbook
Pedro Cavalcante
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-30T23:16:37.167Z
2018-04-30T23:16:37.167Z
Pedro Cavalcante
<p>Here are two Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) experts on the IS-LM model:</p>

<p>The IS-LM model, according to macroeconomics expert Ellis Winningham, (his <a href="http://elliswinningham.net" rel="nofollow noreferrer">website</a>) is that it is "<a href="https://m.facebook.com/story/graphql_permalink/?%20graphql_id=UzpfSTEwMDAwMTQ2NTcxNjMwMDoxODE0MzA5NDU1Mjk0NTYx" rel="nofollow noreferrer">orthodox crap</a>." and "<a href="https://m.facebook.com/story/graphql_permalink/?graphql_id=UzpfSTEwMDAwMTQ2NTcxNjMwMDoyMjMxNTAzMzY2OTA4NDk5" rel="nofollow noreferrer">rubbish</a>."</p>

<p>MMT core economist Stephanie Kelton is a bit more polite but no less devastating in her March Bloomberg article entitled, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-04/krugman-s-macroeconomics-is-no-match-for-mmt" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Clock Runs Down on Mainstream Keynesianism</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The IS-LM framework is a gadget that will often align with sensible real-world analysis. It may perform better than a stopped clock, but it is no match for MMT.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Here is the original architect of the I S-LM model, John Hicks, from a 1980 article in the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>I accordingly conclude that the only way in which the I S-LM analysis usefully survives — as anything more than a classroom gadget, to be superseded, later on, by something better – is in application to a particular kind of causal analysis, where the use of equilibrium methods, even a drastic use of equilibrium methods, is not inappropriate.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is also quoted on page 465 in the new Macroeconomics textbook by William Mitchell, et. al.</p>

<p>Based on the above, I believe it is fair to say that MMT itself considers the IS-LM model to be fatally flawed.</p>

<p>UPDATE: I agree that instead of just saying “it’s bad” that there should be details of why. I will look into it and add them.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-11T13:08:15.940Z
Downvoted because you present the opinions of two economists as if they are representative for the field, while the opposite is closer to the truth. Here are the opinions of [Paul Krugman](http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/islm.html), and [Greg Mankiw](https://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/05/is-lm-model.html) on the matter. They both see IS-LM as a useful tool. Let this serve as a counterweight to your experts.
user18214
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-11T13:11:49.947Z
Winningham is an expert and Kelton is a core MMT economist. They are therefore highly suitable representatives of Modern Monetary Theory itself. I believe it is fair to say that MMT itself says that the IS-LM mode is not reliable and should be abandoned. Kelton’s article is specifically a rebuttal of Krugman.
aliteralmind
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-11T13:24:03.143Z
Then you should explicitly have stated that the people that you have quoted subscribe to a specific school of thought, and are in no way representative of the views held by most economists. Quoting only one side of an argument and subsequently drawing a conclusion from this ("So studying IS-LM at all, with respect, is a questionable endeavor") is not helpful in my opinion.
user18214
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-11T13:27:53.560Z
I removed the final contentious sentence, and I also added a statement by the models original creator, as quoted in the new MMT oriented textbook.
aliteralmind
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-11T13:30:01.200Z
As far as “most economists.” Popularity does not necessarily mean truth.
aliteralmind
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-11T13:36:07.240Z
I think it is clearer now. You may disagree, but I believe I’ve represented it more fairly, accurately, and less inflammatory.
aliteralmind
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-11T13:41:30.670Z
I've retracted my downvote.
user18214
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-11T12:26:52.380Z
2019-05-11T22:39:35.607Z
2019-05-11T22:39:35.607Z
aliteralmind
<p>I would suggest:</p>

<p>1) Macroeconomics by Dornbusch and Fisher.</p>

<p>2) Macroeconomics by Richard Froyen</p>

<p>3) The Economics of money and financial markets by Mishkin.</p>

<p>Between the first two books that is Dornbusch and Fischer and Richard Froyen, I am indifferent.  Both are equally good and the only difference is that Dornbusch and Fischer has a slightly more mathematical rigor whereas Froyen is a more story like engaging macroeconomics narrative with fair amount of mathematics.</p>

<p>If you need a truly engaging book,  then go for Mishkin. But I will suggest don't read Mishkin as the first book to understand macroeconomics.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-27T17:30:37.917Z
2018-11-27T17:30:37.917Z
DrStrangeLove
<p>Basically I'm interested in solving tricky thought provoking exercises based on National income and on IS LM model. I've read mankiw but it didn't satisfy my needs.</p>

<reference-request>
Book recommendations: National income accounting and IS-LM model
Shoaib Ashraf
# Book recommendations: National income accounting and IS-LM model

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-04-27)

Basically I'm interested in solving tricky thought provoking exercises based on National income and on IS LM model. I've read mankiw but it didn't satisfy my needs.

**Tags:** reference-request


---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2018-11-27. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

I would suggest:

1) Macroeconomics by Dornbusch and Fisher.

2) Macroeconomics by Richard Froyen

3) The Economics of money and financial markets by Mishkin.

Between the first two books that is Dornbusch and Fischer and Richard Froyen, I am indifferent. Both are equally good and the only difference is that Dornbusch and Fischer has a slightly more mathematical rigor whereas Froyen is a more story like engaging macroeconomics narrative with fair amount of mathematics.

If you need a truly engaging book, then go for Mishkin. But I will suggest don't read Mishkin as the first book to understand macroeconomics.


---

### Answer by username_1 on 2018-04-30. Score: 2

I think "Macroeconomics in a Global Economy", by Sachs and Larrain is a good reference for you. It has a lot more math in it and a great exposition of the IS-LM model.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: honestly can't figure out why this has been downvoted, it`s a solid textbook  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2019-05-11. Score: 1

Here are two Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) experts on the IS-LM model:

The IS-LM model, according to macroeconomics expert Ellis Winningham, (his [website](http://elliswinningham.net)) is that it is "[orthodox crap](https://m.facebook.com/story/graphql_permalink/?%20graphql_id=UzpfSTEwMDAwMTQ2NTcxNjMwMDoxODE0MzA5NDU1Mjk0NTYx)." and "[rubbish](https://m.facebook.com/story/graphql_permalink/?graphql_id=UzpfSTEwMDAwMTQ2NTcxNjMwMDoyMjMxNTAzMzY2OTA4NDk5)."

MMT core economist Stephanie Kelton is a bit more polite but no less devastating in her March Bloomberg article entitled, [The Clock Runs Down on Mainstream Keynesianism](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-04/krugman-s-macroeconomics-is-no-match-for-mmt):

> The IS-LM framework is a gadget that will often align with sensible real-world analysis. It may perform better than a stopped clock, but it is no match for MMT.

Here is the original architect of the I S-LM model, John Hicks, from a 1980 article in the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics:

> I accordingly conclude that the only way in which the I S-LM analysis usefully survives — as anything more than a classroom gadget, to be superseded, later on, by something better – is in application to a particular kind of causal analysis, where the use of equilibrium methods, even a drastic use of equilibrium methods, is not inappropriate.

This is also quoted on page 465 in the new Macroeconomics textbook by William Mitchell, et. al.

Based on the above, I believe it is fair to say that MMT itself considers the IS-LM model to be fatally flawed.

UPDATE: I agree that instead of just saying “it’s bad” that there should be details of why. I will look into it and add them.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: Downvoted because you present the opinions of two economists as if they are representative for the field, while the opposite is closer to the truth. Here are the opinions of [Paul Krugman](http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/islm.html), and [Greg Mankiw](https://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/05/is-lm-model.html) on the matter. They both see IS-LM as a useful tool. Let this serve as a counterweight to your experts.  
> **username_2**: Winningham is an expert and Kelton is a core MMT economist. They are therefore highly suitable representatives of Modern Monetary Theory itself. I believe it is fair to say that MMT itself says that the IS-LM mode is not reliable and should be abandoned. Kelton’s article is specifically a rebuttal of Krugman.  
> **username_3**: Then you should explicitly have stated that the people that you have quoted subscribe to a specific school of thought, and are in no way representative of the views held by most economists. Quoting only one side of an argument and subsequently drawing a conclusion from this ("So studying IS-LM at all, with respect, is a questionable endeavor") is not helpful in my opinion.  
> **username_2**: I removed the final contentious sentence, and I also added a statement by the models original creator, as quoted in the new MMT oriented textbook.  
> **username_2**: As far as “most economists.” Popularity does not necessarily mean truth.  
> **username_2**: I think it is clearer now. You may disagree, but I believe I’ve represented it more fairly, accurately, and less inflammatory.  
> **username_3**: I've retracted my downvote.  

---

