tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post3481303627356955395..comments2024-03-17T00:23:24.896-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Keynes Repudiated Keynesianism?Lord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-53831143188424490232014-01-04T14:57:34.012-08:002014-01-04T14:57:34.012-08:00Have some empirical evidence, on me:
http://www.yo...Have some empirical evidence, on me:<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4Ju0N0WJvoCarole Langerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12936512153460045627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-86295137688646570592013-11-27T01:51:42.863-08:002013-11-27T01:51:42.863-08:00"He clearly refers to his economic thinking, ...<i>"He clearly refers to his economic thinking, not the American loan,"</i><br /><br />The context of their conversation:<br /><br /><i>“On Thursday 11 April he had lunch at the Bank after the regular meeting of the court. He sat next to Henry Clay; **<b>they discussed the American loan</b>**. Keynes said that he relied on Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ <b>to get Britain out of the mess it was in</b>, and went on: ‘I find myself more and more relying for a solution of our problems on the invisible hand which I tried to eject from economic thinking twenty years ago.’ "...</i><br /><br />The context <i>was</i> the American<br /> loan. And a reading of Keynes' two major biographies confirms this.<br /><br />But, then, perhaps you're the sort Austrian/libertarian halfwit who thinks that empirical evidence can never prove anything?Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-9561438489665201202013-11-27T00:45:05.269-08:002013-11-27T00:45:05.269-08:00This is pathetic. He clearly refers to his economi...This is pathetic. He clearly refers to his economic thinking, not the American loan, not the UK, not the nationalizations, not even The General Theory. Economic thinking, as is self-explanatory, means his mode of reasoning about economics, whatever the topic. You're clutching at straws here trying to defend Keynesianism and to interpret Keyne's own clear words differently. Obviously, this is not your first post appearing as a dogmatic court scientist of social democracy and Keynesianism.Bardhyl N. Salihuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13425822676711416838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-30775118165004516872011-12-02T01:34:35.433-08:002011-12-02T01:34:35.433-08:00And, as you imply, there is clearly the possibilit...And, as you imply, there is clearly the possibility that Henry Clay has exaggerated/ grossly distorted what Keynes said.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-78594344508378822982011-12-02T01:31:24.219-08:002011-12-02T01:31:24.219-08:00"But if our central controls succeed in estab...<i>"But if our central controls succeed in establishing an aggregate volume of output corresponding to full employment as nearly as is practicable, the classical theory comes into its own again from this point onwards."</i><br /><br />That is an excellent quotation from the GT.<br />Yes, I agree with your comments.<br /><br />RegardsLord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-46855740027984253962011-12-02T01:21:44.189-08:002011-12-02T01:21:44.189-08:00Is that not in line with the comment in "Gene...Is that not in line with the comment in "General Theory" that once state intervention had got the overall economy fixed then market forces could work? From <a href="http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/k/keynes/john_maynard/k44g/chapter24.html" rel="nofollow">Chapter 24</a>:<br /><br />"But if our central controls succeed in establishing an aggregate volume of output corresponding to full employment as nearly as is practicable, the classical theory comes into its own again from this point onwards."<br /><br />This seems consistent with the quote recounted by Skidelsky. <br /><br />In terms of the "eject" comment, this seems strange as Keynes NEVER ejected the market. For example, in Chapter 24 Keynes goes on to argue:<br /><br />"If we suppose the volume of output to be given, i.e. to be determined by forces outside the classical scheme of thought, then there is no objection to be raised against the classical analysis of the manner in which private self-interest will determine what in particular is produced, in what proportions the factors of production will be combined to produce it, and how the value of the final product will be distributed between them."<br /><br />So, given this, I would suggest that the issue is Henry Clay and HIS perceptions of Keynes and his ideas, rather than Keynes recanting.<br /><br />Iain<br /><a href="http://www.anarchistfaq.org.uk" rel="nofollow">An Anarchist FAQ</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-85848412199280028342011-12-01T10:31:44.297-08:002011-12-01T10:31:44.297-08:00Lk,
I get that and I am in general agreement wit...Lk, <br /><br />I get that and I am in general agreement with your post but what i do not get is the comment i was responding to... how is opposing Keynesianism only through a religious mode than by other means?Isaac"Izzy"Marmolejohttp://thepunished.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-58448545692777947262011-12-01T07:04:23.715-08:002011-12-01T07:04:23.715-08:00Neil:
"What it does show though is that thos...Neil:<br /><br />"What it does show though is that those opposing Keynesian views are operating in a religious mode rather than scientific mode."<br /><br />Spoken like a true religious believer. It's the other way around. It shows that those in favor of Keynesian views are operating in a religious mode rather than a scientific mode.<br /><br />There is no science behind Keynesianism. There is only violent power and control. That's it. That's not scientific.<br /><br />LK:<br /><br />"It shows gross ignorance of reason and logic"<br /><br />That fallaciously presumes Keynesianism is reasonable and logical, which Austrians have proven it is not.<br /><br />"also characteristic of the worst elements of religious irrationality, to say that just because the author of an idea later rejected it that you have necessarily or seriously underminded the actual idea in any way."<br /><br />Then why did you do precisely that with Say's law in your last post? <br /><br />You only got upset by this tactic AFTER it was used against Keynes. Using it against Say? Permitted. Using it against Keynes! BANNED! LOL<br /><br />"The libertarian obsession with trying to discredit Keynesianism by saying "Keynes recanted in his last days!!" is as ridiculous as the Christian fudamentalist saying Darwinian evolution is false because "Darwin recanted it and become a Christian on his deathbed!"."<br /><br />The Keynesian wannabe obsession of trying to discredit Say by saying "Say qualified his own law in his latter days!" is as ridiculous as a Keynesian fundamentalist saying Austrianism is false because "Say qualified his own law and became a state interventionist on his death bed!"<br /><br />"I see no evidence Keynes ever "recanted," and again, even if he did, that is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of modern Post Keyensian, neoclassical synthesis or New Keynesian economics."<br /><br />I see no evidence Say ever "repudiated", and again, even if he did, that is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of Say's law.Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-4008375958310981232011-12-01T03:43:33.109-08:002011-12-01T03:43:33.109-08:00Can you explain?
It shows gross ignorance of reas...<i>Can you explain?</i><br /><br />It shows gross ignorance of reason and logic, also characteristic of the worst elements of religious irrationality, to say that just because the author of an idea later rejected it that you have necessarily or seriously underminded the actual idea in any way. <br /><br />The libertarian obsession with trying to discredit Keynesianism by saying "Keynes recanted in his last days!!" is as ridiculous as the Christian fudamentalist saying Darwinian evolution is false because "Darwin recanted it and become a Christian on his deathbed!".<br /><br />Well, Darwin didn't, and even if he did, that is irrelevant to the truth of modern Darwinian evolution by natural selection. <br /><br />I see no evidence Keynes ever "recanted," and again, even if he did, that is <i>irrelevant</i> to the truth or falsity of modern Post Keyensian, neoclassical synthesis or New Keynesian economics.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-85107865062867129142011-12-01T03:16:38.201-08:002011-12-01T03:16:38.201-08:00"What it does show though is that those oppos..."What it does show though is that those opposing Keynesian views are operating in a religious mode rather than scientific mode."<br /><br />Can you explain?Isaac Izzy Marmolejohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11954588809878738480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-29236375990451609402011-12-01T02:34:40.287-08:002011-12-01T02:34:40.287-08:00What it does show though is that those opposing Ke...What it does show though is that those opposing Keynesian views are operating in a religious mode rather than scientific mode.<br /><br />It's always what the man said that matters, not what the evidence shows to be the case.<br /><br />Keynes was not a prophet for some higher power. He's just a man who put forward some ideas.NeilWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11565959939525324309noreply@blogger.com