I might describe myself as a third-generation Keynesian – Keynesian, in that I am convinced, as many economists are not, of the usefulness of the approach originated by Lord Keynes, and the importance of the problems with which his analysis deals; third-generation, in both the time at which I came to the study of the theory and my attitude towards it. I have neither the passionate conviction of revealed truth of the first generation, with its tendency towards bibliolatry, hero-worship, and intolerance towards critical points of view; nor the pioneering enthusiasm of the second generation, acknowledging the limitations of Keynes' book but not of his analysis, and assuming that the “General Theory” is the starting point of economic wisdom. I regard Keynes' “General Theory” as an extension rather than a replacement of previously existing knowledge, a book which omits not only some of the answers but also some of the questions; and I believe that further progress requires a synthesis of the Keynesian analysis with the general corpus of economic theory.