commands attention. For years now.nGreene has been promoting a simplenidea: replace all categorical incomentransfer programs with lump-sum pa)-mentsnin cold, h:ird cash. In this book, hencalls the payment a Guaranteed IncomenSupplement. It resembles Friedman’snnegative income tax and the ill-starrednNixon Family Assistance Plan, Greenenthinks that by cashing-out and adjustingnbenefit amounts, we (the body politic)ncould eliminate the morass of conflictingnbenefit regulations and the work-disincentiveneffects of the current welfarensystem. But the system is not just snarled;nit’s a disaster, Greene cites the heartrendingntale of the department storenpackage-wrapper who set about to benfired from her minimum-wage jobnbecause her take-home pay w;ts no morenattractive than unemployment compensation.nHe tells of the cripple whonreceived $2,275 in retroactive SupplementalnSecurity Income entitlements,nonly to be disqualified for further benefitsnbecause of his new iissets. And henadvises us he knew of a promising youngnemployee who quit his job because hisnsalary, though hardly princely, jeopardizednhis family’s subsidized housingnstatus.nIf that’s saddening, consider this: thenamount that the U.S, government spendsneach year to fight poverty is more thannthree times the amount needed to liftnevery man, woman, and child in thencountry above the poverty line. But thenpoor and hungry are stiU with us becausenour vast welfare system was assemblednpiecemeal more to please importantnpolitical interest groups than to alleviatenpoverty. Especially exasperating, bothnfor those who wish to pull themselves upnby their own bootstraps and those whonmust foot the bill for the system, is thenregressive schedide of benefit reductionsnfor those who elect to leave thendole to seek usefiil employment. Whatnamounts to a marginal tax rate of from 60nto 100 percent on earned income is anroadblock to productive lives. It is hardnto itiiagine a s)’Stem which penalizes worknand rewards idleness more effectively,n24inChronicles of Culturenor which, providing in-kind paymentsnsuch as housing sul^sidies or foodst;imps,nmore paternally precludes responsiblenmarket choices b}’ beneficiaries,nGreene’s proposal makes a great dealnof intuitive sense, as do other marketorientednprescriptions such as thennegative income t;Lx and benefit vouchers.nBut unless some cle’er politicalnentrepreneur can cloak these dismalnproposals in the politics of joy andnmarket the concept con’incingly to thenANtW MyCEK-WODECtln84nelectorate, prospects for welfare reformnare minimal.nAccording to the book jacket fornMacroeconomics, both Godley andnCripps are Cambridge hangers-on whon”are now regarded as unorthodox butncreative champions of the Keynesianntradition,” Tliey are also members of then”Cambridge Economic Policy Group …nknown for their critiques of governmentnpolicy and their eclectic model andnresearch methods which distance themnnnfrom the prevailing fashions of thendecade—^monetarism :md econometrics.”nIn the old days, economists used tonspeak of an avant-garde concept callednthe “neoclassical synthesis.” ITiis was antheoretical compromise between thenmicroeconomic analysis of the classicalnschool (often called “Austrian”), andnKeynesian macroeconomic managementn(i,e„ in the long run we are all dead,nso any policy is better than none), Bynwhatever name, this .synthesis of shortnand long-run policy alternatives andnimplications has found wide acceptancenamong economists of all persuasions.n”What Godley and Cripps offer is yetnmore middle ground. Are you fed upnwith the same old policy dilemma ofnmonetarism vs. Keynesianism, rules vs.nrea^son? Macroeconomics is just whatnthe doctor ordered. Godley and Crippsnhave done their best to incorporate allnthe science seems to know about thenrelationships between the markets forngoods and the market for capital. Theirnmodel of an economy driven by^ inventoriesnand credit is intriguing. But what kindnof coherent national economic policiesncould flow firom such an understanding?nUnfortunately, the answer seems to benmore of the same haphazard and unpredictablenmix of monetary and fiscalninterventions which have proven sonunreliable in the past. Keynesians,nalmost by definition, view the economynas some elaborate hydraulic apparatusnwhich can be kept boiling merrily atnsome externally postulated equilibriumnby merely spinning a dial here to increaseninjections everj^ time the crankynmachine makes a decision on its own tonspring a leak there. There is nothing innthis exposition to suggest that governmentnassume a more passive role.nIf government can manage the economynsuccessfully, as Godley and Crippsnsuggest, think of the joyflil politics whichncould emanate from this intellectualnbase. But such an outcome is doubtful.nOne hopes that no joyful warrior willnmanage to stay awake thrc:iugh thenboring book and comprehend its policynimplications. Dn