Basically, what I'm saying is that you could get through a year of macro at Rochester - and then do metrics or micro - hence completing a PhD in economics without every seeing 'money' mentioned, with only a small change in the present curriculum. It appears Dani Rodrik thinks this would be a problem.
Now, I won't pretend to be conversant with the current macroeconomics literature, but let's take Rodrik's word:
The bad news is the world could really use some practical, relevant macroeconomic theory at the moment. Brad DeLong and Paul Krugman are doing a superb job of reminding us of the continued relevance of Keynesian thinking. But they are hampered by the absence of micro-founded models that plausibly deliver the Keynesian remedies they advocate.
I am, however, fairly confident with the theory of supply and demand. Also with the desire of many tenure track economists to receive the accolades of Krugman and others.
So, there appears to be a large demand for these micro-founded models (based on the actions of aggregated rational individuals), but very little in terms of supply, consistent with the belief that a large reward awaits those who can produce. And yet, we don't see these models being produced. I am under the impression that this is because when you try to craft these models, they just don't match the data at all, to paraphrase one of the professors here from the other day.
Note that in real business cycle models you can construct government spending multipliers greater than one, but the ones I've seen have this effect result from the government spending making people feel poorer and having them 'purchase' less leisure as a result. And I don't think that's how Keynesians percieve their stimulus.
Now, perhaps there is some insight out there that can rescue Keynesian models and make them approximate the data to a reasonable degree, or perhaps reconciliation simply isn't possible without seriously changing the definition of Keynesianism. Given the effort that's been exerted, let's assume for the purpose of argument that it's the latter. Can we still advocate Keynesian positions and call ourselves social scientists? Don't think so, but I can't see people giving up, either.
POSTSCRIPT: For the record, I continue to believe that the real side of the crisis is roughly approximated by a destruction of a large chunk of the capital shock. I can't really say anything about the monetary matters.
I also had an interview for a summer RA position the other day, which I failed to secure. Which is probably deserved, since the girl that did get it was running 95%+ in macro I, while nobody else in the class was threatening to break 80%. Still, being approached by a prof for the position makes one feel good.