Most, though, would argue that Keynes was more ridiculous than the Keynesians -what with his plan to drive interest rates to zero and thereby create an unlimited amount of capital while also theorizing that wages could never drop since their nominal level was too highly valued by workers; Keynes hated the idea of falling wages.
This book was horrible. If you get it, make sure to download the teachers guide.
This is incorrect. Keynes advocated inflationary measures as a way to bypass price rigidities in the labor market (he supported inflation during recessions). Keynes wanted to keep nominal wage stable while inflating away real wages.
Keynes on money and expectations is okay, but his plan to socialize investment, and his business cycle theories are, well, you know.
“This is incorrect. Keynes advocated inflationary measures as a way to bypass price rigidities in the labor market (he supported inflation during recessions). Keynes wanted to keep nominal wage stable while inflating away real wages.”
I’ve heard this before too, but I never thought that he consciously wanted to inflate away real wages to get over price rigidities, so I guess what I’m asking (I’m not challenging you to be sure) is, where did keynes write this, in the General Theory?
I’ve heard similar views about the Chiang book, Esuric. Apparently, it’s better used as a reference tool than a book for learning the material.
If you want to know what the mainstream* thinks, you should pick up the treatise written by Paul Samuelson called Principles of Economics.
I only mention it, because Samuelson has been cited by various professionals as the man who killed the economics field, and the social sciences in general. Nassim Nicholas Taleb particularly unleashed a volley of criticism
It’s important to know the Samuelson-ian thinking, because Samuelson mathematized the social sciences forever. Where people should not be regarded as atoms and planets, Samuelson disregarded this simple fact, and once arrogantly said, “Those who can, do science. Those who can not, do methodology.” The key problem of today’s economics is a hopeless reliance on mathematics without actually thinking of anything in terms of flesh-and-blood people. Suddenly, engineers entered this profession, and talk of business cycles like fluids and physics formulas. Every five years, somebody writes an article lamenting this mathematization, but it falls on deaf years.
Interesting, Samuelson was a Keynesian, but did something quite un-Keynesian in building economics entirely on mathematics; something Keynes never approved. Knowing Samuelson, and knowing criticisms of him can help you see where economics fell apart.
*I use the term very loosely, since there is no mainstream. Every economist disagrees with one another.
I believe it’s chapter 19 in the GT.
Yes, it is Chapter 19 of the General Theory where Keynes discusses the ‘genius’ idea of combating prices rigidities with inflation. I, too, was looking for the source after reading the book Understanding The Dollar Crisis (PDF available), where the author discussed the Keynsian solution of inflation to solve high unemployment. Hazlitt also provides a good critique, as I’m sure everyone knows, of Keynes ideas in Chapter of 19 of GT in The Failure of the New Economics, pages 263-287, as well as other areas such as p. 314 and 421. (PDF Study guide to Hazlitt’s work for those short on time is here)
By the way, as the original poster, I want to thank you all again for your suggestions. I am very deep in my learning of other schools, even though coming at it after reading Human Action and Man, Economy and State is very difficult. In reading some of these other works, I have to sometimes ask “I just can’t believe these idiots are for real.” It is also amazing in reading some mainstream articles by so-called limited government people who, perhaps unknowingly, advocate through economic policies none other than central planning.
But that said, it helps in my dealings with New Keynsian and Chicago School economists since I never took econ in school.
Has anyone read Recursive Methods in Economic Dynamics by Robert Lucas? I aim to read some of his papers on the Island Model for a private research project of mine, so I’m beginning to think mastering this might be a pre-requisite of sorts, that could also get me highly familiar with the methods of modern macro, in so far as the use of maths goes.
What do people think of this book?
try the communist manifesto its actually quite an interest work of fiction and helps quite a lot when u run into communists and socilists. Also it helps to understand the incorrect features of centralised economy’s.
edit: the incorrect features being all elements of them
I haven’t read it yet, but Jesus Huerta de Soto’s book “The Austrian School” supposedly among other things “…provides a detailed explanation of the differences between the Austrian and the neoclassical (including the Chicago School) approaches to economics” and you can download it free from the Institute of Economic Affairs here: download full publication