The paper criticizes Basil Moore's contention (in his 1988 book, "Horizontalists and Verticalists") that the theory of endogenous money invalidates the 'traditional' Keynesian idea of the multiplier.

It is a lengthy review essay on Rudy van Zijp's book "Austrian and New Classical Business Cycle Theories" (Elgar, 1993) The review is quite critical, both of the book and of Hayek (whose theories are foremost among the Austrian works considered by van Zijp).

The paper deals with Hayek's ideas concerning transition between different 'structures of production' and argues that while these ideas are of interest, they are fundamentally flawed. The relationships between Hayek's cycle theory and (a) Keynes and (b) Robert Lucas are also examined.

The paper deals with Keynes's critique of Pigou, and takes issue with Nahid Aslanbeigui's recent attempt to "rehabilitate" the latter. I argue that Keynes made one significant mistake of interpretation, but that this by no means vitiaites his critique.

We make the argument that what failed in the USSR was not socialist planning as such, but a particular and definitely flawed variant of same, and suggest the outlines of an alternative system of planning. The paper is complementary to our 1993 book, "Towards a New Socialism."