It’s a bit of banter, get over it. He made a small joke about a (somewhat true in that the book is convoluted, not that it had anything to do with intimidation) comment made by Rockwell and all of a sudden he’s a “useful idiot”, “crypto Nazi” and whatever else.
I also recoiled at that sentence: http://www.economicthought.net/2011/02/rockwell-on-keynes/
I see that Gene Callahan also commented there. I ask, “If General Theory was so convoluted, why was it so influential?” Dan replies that it’s because it was “nothing but an encoded and encrypted collection of the same old fallacies”. Gene Callahan responds to Dan by saying, “All one has to do is write a convoluted version of old fallacies and you’ll have a hot book?”
Had that gone longer, it would be an interesting discussion.
I prefer to discriminate and be friendly with people who are thoughtful and have character.
Yes, we should create a bubble where you can post smears and critiques of others, but people should not question what you say or your motives.
Double standard for Prateek please. It’s the [sic] friendly thing to do!
Gary North also claims Keynes work is nonsensical. He has done so at the ASC iirc.
I don’t think mock horror at Lew’s claims serves any purpose. One can’t become distinguished or respectable by hugging the middle of the road.
Okay, is it so that any charge can be framed against me and then the burden of proof be left on me to prove myself innocent? That is not how it works in this world. Folks are always innocent until proven guilty.
Yes, I did a very wrongful thing, several weeks or rather months ago, when I quoted what an acquaintance of Professor Rockwell said about him. You were right in saying that this was not the place for posting anybody else’s hearsay accusations against the founders of the institute that runs this website. I agreed, admitted my mistake, and left it there. And (I assumed) you also left the matter then and there.
And then? Well, you have not specified where I have smeared anyone. If you feel I have any anti-libertarian motives or opportunistic motives, by all means say so, but support it.
I am astonished however that after a poster has called somebody a crypto-Nazi and a useful idiot in this very thread, I am the one who is guilty. And my mistake was pointing that out.
Might be best to move that conversation to member issues if it continues? Maybe not, I’ll let you and LS decide on that.
Where is the framed charge? You engage in the very behavior which you later protest over, making you a hypocrite.
No, your mistake is being a hypocrite. You start these discussions by highlighting some personal conflict and expressing personal joy at that conflict,
I laughed out loud at this excellent burn.
and then when people join the conflict, you cluck your tongue like you are better than everyone else. We don’t need to be reminded of how bitter and sad Gene Callahan can be, or how small and juvenile your tastes are.
If you were as clever as I sometimes think you are, you would stop trying to post anything here about personal conflicts and stick to discussions about economics and philosophy. The former leads to a reputation as a gossip.
Yes. I agree. The truth is not some halfway point between two untruths. There is no Golden Mean to every two-sided dispute.
Anyway, I’ll probably make my stand clear. To understand Keynesian economics, one probably has to read Keynes’ work, then the commentaries on it by John Hicks, Paul Samuelson, Joan Robinson, and so on. That’s a lot of dedicated work, and that too just to understand what is Keynesian economics.
Inversely, Austrian economics also involves much study. There is a vast series of literature written by Messrs. Rothbard, Mises, Hoppe, Gordon, North, and so on. I can claim to have read only a small fraction of it, and I am put in a point between basic and intermediate in my understanding.
Clearly, it’s almost a life’s work just to understand one single school of economics. Which is why when non-Austrians criticise the Austrian School, they may use strawmen and dubious, incomplete knowledge of it, which can be easily pointed out by anybody who reads the critique. And while it may be so that the Austrian School is complete truth and Keynesianism complete falsehood, criticising Keynes without knowing what Keynes actually said is a bad idea that backfires.
However, again, it’s a life’s work to understand Keynesian economics alone, it would seem. Like it’s an entirely different subject. In this manner, the Austrian School and the Keynesian School are like two insular bubbles which have focused inwardly on developing advancing their own theories. When Robert Murphy wanted to debate Paul Krugman, some commmentators called it “debating in the blind”. Krugman and Murphy speak two different languages, and it would be likely that they would not not talk TO each other, but merely talk in each other’s presence.
For the rare superhuman who has read all works of all schools to be the complete qualified expert on all of them, we shall all yield the floor to him. Else, what was so terribly wrong in that Lew Rockwell, a great educator, was jestingly criticised by his old friend, Gene Callahan, for perhaps not being entirely fair?
I’m done, and thanks for the reminder.
Done. Never again. I can take the hint. I concede herein.
Gary North also claims Keynes work is nonsensical. He has done so at the ASC iirc.
Yes, and this is absolutely correct. Keynes’ system involves several incoherent categories, and it doesn’t hang together; his analysis of Say’s Law is totally mistaken.
Liberty Student,
I’m not hugging the middle of the road. I’m speaking as someone who has read parts of the book, and knows several (Austrian) scholars (such as Garrison), who do not think that Keynes’s book is incomprehensible. It may be nearly entirely wrong, but it’s not incomprehensible, and certainly he did not confuse a profession into agreeing with him.
How do you know what he (Garrison) thinks? In his writings, he only addresses the main tenets of the General Theory as commonly understood and illustrated in most text books.
Now, for what it’s worth, I can tell you that I personally had a short converstation with Garrison a few years back at FEE in NY, where he spoke very highly of Hazlitt’s book “The Failure of the New Economics”.
Reading the GT does not make you an expert in Keynesian economics, an ambiguous term in itself. Keynes is probably the most controversial economist of all-times, which is why there are several different schools of Keynesian thought. Of course, there are also people like Daniel Kuehn who make the argument that Keynes wasn’t a Keynesian, and who insist that you must take a holistic approach when analyzing his theories (which changed dramatically throughout the 20s, 30s, and 40s). All of this suggests that Keynes wasn’t nearly as lucid in his writings, especially when it came to the GT, as some people proclaim.
But I don’t agree with Lew. Keynes won the battle in the 30s, against Hayek, primarily because (a) he included expectations and uncertainty, (b) his framework lends itself perfectly to mathematical modeling, and (c) implies all sorts of policy recommendations. So no, Keynes didn’t win because of some sort of conspiracy (in my opinion). This probably explains why Hayek and other Austrians began focusing on the role of prices in establishing equilibrium, uncertainty, expectations, etc.
How do you know what he (Garrison) thinks? In his writings, he only addresses the main tenets of the General Theory as commonly understood and illustrated in most text books.
As far as I remember, Garrison actually cites most of these interpretations as inadequate in his book. He has to virtually re-model the Keynesian framework (chaper seven), and it’s definately not the tenets “commonly understood and illustrated in most text books” — he, in fact, critisizes the way Keynesian theory is presented your common undergraduate and graduate economics program (where no clear cut framework is provided). I didn’t take notes of the book, but these are some things he writes in Time and Money,
My final understanding of Keynesianism comes substantially from my own reading of Keynes’s General Theory together with his earlier writings, but it owes much to two of Keynes’s interpreters — Allan Meltzer and Axel Leijonhufvud (p. xiii)
Now, for what it’s worth, I can tell you that I personally had a short converstation with Garrison a few years back at FEE in NY, where he spoke very highly of Hazlitt’s book “The Failure of the New Economics”.
I’m sure he does. You don’t have to agree with Keynes even though you understood what he said in his book.
Yes, but it’s funny how everybody who claims to understand it comes out with a different take on what Keynes meant.
What Hazlitt shows is that there are many ways one can interpret Keynes depending on how much and what specific parts you are willing to ignore vs. what you are willing to actually address. The same words mean different things in different parts of the book and he constantly shifts back and fourth between contradictory ideas. While different pieces if isolated can perhaps make sense, combining them all together makes absolutely no sense.
How many people in the profession actually read this book cover to cover?
How many of those actually read the book critically?
And finally, how many of those actually wrote a [almost] line for line refutation of the entire book?
Yes, but it’s funny how everybody who claims to understand it comes out with a different take on what Keynes meant.
This is semi-true, but it has to be remembered that The General Theory is an open ended book. It’s not so much that you can interpret it differently, it’s that you can apply Keynes’s ideas to your own world view. Consequently, we saw different variations of Keynes, as people applied what Keynes wrote in The General Theory with their pre-existing economic beliefs (for example, Hicks spearheaded the “neoclassical synthesis”, as he was already an economist in the general equilibrium tradition). There were others who interpreted Keynes directly, and most of their interpretations are pretty close to each other.
Not many people today have read The General Theory, more likely than not, although most of the profession in England and the United States probably read the book when it came it out. I’m willing to bet that most professional economists who write through important academic media have probably read it (like Krugman, Stiglitz, Cowen, et cetera). The book certainly appeals to those who already have a similar background in economics, because more than repeat the fallacies it basis its message on these commonly held incorrect beliefs. Like I said in the blog post, though, very little of today’s economists actually accept the important part of The General Theory (the underlying assumptions Keynes makes), and instead call themselves Keynesians due to their agreement with counter-cyclical fiscal policies.
re: “Of course, there are also people like Daniel Kuehn who make the argument that Keynes wasn’t a Keynesian”
Dude - what are you talking about? When have I ever said that?
Yes, you should look over the 20s, 30s, and 40s because there is more consistency than you suggest, but where he changes his mind it’s probably most reasonable to look at the General Theory. But Keynes’s views define the parameters of Keynesianism. Why are you saying I suggest he’s not a Keynesian?
What was Rockwell talking about with regards to Principia Ethica? I haven’t read Principa Ethica or studied G.E. Moore for that matter, but I don’t recall anywhere where Moore defended “immoralism” from whatever Wiki-research I have ever done on him.