tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post4350683157980460176..comments2024-03-17T00:23:24.896-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: How to Mangle Keynesian TheoryLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-89206419128879514822014-09-09T00:03:41.354-07:002014-09-09T00:03:41.354-07:00... and by "immediately" Keynes meant &q...... and by "immediately" Keynes meant "after 200 years"... lol.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-43526212512270550242014-09-08T20:05:51.496-07:002014-09-08T20:05:51.496-07:00"Immediately we're all dead.” -- J M Keyn..."Immediately we're all dead.” -- J M KeynesKen Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08207803092348071005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-42861931098365088602014-09-08T12:12:52.523-07:002014-09-08T12:12:52.523-07:00Yes, you are completely correct.
Major_Freedom i...Yes, you are completely correct. <br /><br />Major_Freedom is the worst offender on this score.<br /><br />The most bizarre example of what you describe was when M_F aka "David" debated me on my blog a while ago on a passage in J. B. Say's work.<br /><br />After losing an argument on Say’s law, he decided that he could literally redefine “immediately” as used by Say in any sense he wanted at all:<br /><br /><i>“Other than the misleading word “immediately”, which can be taken to mean any time at all, since the standard for “short” and “long” periods of time is not objective but subjective, how is that statement idiotic?”</i><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/12/say-repudiated-says-law.html?showComment=1322754858471#c4751417681290758722<br />---------------------<br />Yes, you read right: “immediately” can mean any time at all!!<br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-65215654083886259582014-09-08T12:02:05.125-07:002014-09-08T12:02:05.125-07:00As I remarked over at Callahan's, most dispute...As I remarked over at Callahan's, most disputes with ancaps result from their refusal to use language properly or truthfully; they are always substituting slanted inaccurate terms. So they claim theirs is the only theory that eschews "force". When I corrected that exact example a firestorm started. They do this all the time with everything. It is going on at Murphy's now where Philippe is nailing them over multicultural when they really mean segregated. Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08207803092348071005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-58014573454268525712014-09-08T11:25:17.092-07:002014-09-08T11:25:17.092-07:00And a final thought: this all confirms that in ma...And a final thought: this all confirms that in many libertarian/Austrian writings, the "Keynes" and "Keynesian" theory they attack is usually a straw man of their own devising.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-31428390363899577002014-09-08T11:23:02.011-07:002014-09-08T11:23:02.011-07:00Excellent point and excellent graph!
Thanks for t...Excellent point and excellent graph!<br /><br />Thanks for this.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-73911833470757352922014-09-08T10:41:59.838-07:002014-09-08T10:41:59.838-07:00Um, it's even more wrong than you think. Murph...Um, it's even more wrong than you think. Murphy writes:<br /><br />"After all, their theory is that consumers for some inexplicable reason get spooked and reduce their spending."<br /><br />Um. No. In the General Theory Keynes assumes a fixed consumption function. There are problems with this but I won't get into them here. This is what is assumed.<br /><br />The fall in demand begins as private investment falls. Consumption then falls, to a limited extent, due to the contraction in income caused by the unemployment. This is in most mainstream macro texts, I would imagine.Philip Pilkingtonhttp://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-3188192754856107972014-09-08T06:59:17.905-07:002014-09-08T06:59:17.905-07:00Yes, "in the simplest Keynesian story" w...Yes, "in the simplest Keynesian story" which how many actual Keynesian economists have stated or endorsed?? Probably: zero.<br /><br />In other words, it is not "the simplest Keynesian story", but a caricature of Keynesian theory.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-48873635039570462062014-09-08T06:12:03.501-07:002014-09-08T06:12:03.501-07:00"in the simplest Keynesian story" seems ..."in the simplest Keynesian story" seems like a tip-off to me. A disclaimer that the uninitiated, the audience for the book, will make nothing of but which lets Murphy to say "well of course I didn't mean the version Keynes and others actually meant." In other words, I see it as evidence of a deliberate appeal to ignorance with the intent to mislead.Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08207803092348071005noreply@blogger.com