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.

中文翻译：

---

戈德利-托宾纪念讲座

本文比较了韦恩·戈德利和詹姆斯·托宾的宏观经济观点。两位作者都比同时代的人更关心金钱问题。两位作者都以不同的方式为股票流动一致方法做出了贡献，托宾向戈德利提供了他所缺少的投资组合分析。两位作者都持有凯恩斯主义的政策立场，但他们有时都被指责不够凯恩斯主义。虽然托宾坚持新古典理论，但戈德利拒绝了它，因为他永远无法理解它。在处理经济活动从短期到长期的遍历时，这两位作者之间的差异尤其明显。最大的区别在于他们对银行业的概念：托宾认为银行与其他金融中介几乎没有区别，本质上是提供投资组合选择，最终他依赖于与银行部分准备金理论相关的可变乘数观点；相比之下，戈德利强调了银行的信贷创造能力及其在经济中的重要作用今天。