Come on. That just feels like a random uninformed dismissal When Post Keynesians say Stock Flow Consistency of the Godley Lavoie tradition. They mean explicitly matching assets and liabilities and flows across different balance sheets in different time periods Stocks are state variables that feed in to flows (interest payments, capital gains/losses, leverage, liquidity constraints). Endogenous money happens through balance sheet expansions on both the assets and liabilities side. You don’t need to invent exogenous money supply. You don’t need to invent shocks. Sectoral balances. Solvency and liquidity can cause Minsky style instabilities by themselves In contrast the DSGE stock flow consistency is tautological. Flows balance. But stocks are not state variables between different sectoral positions. And yes you are right. We need a stochastic sectoral balances model with heterogeneous agents (with their own balance sheets) to model the economy. I mean if you can accept the fairy tale of a model with one representative agent representing the whole of economy when the root of economic interaction is agents with their own expectations and balance sheet positions trying to trade things with each other The intellectual arrogance of mainstream economics given the last 50 years of unclear models and predictions continues to stagger me