I have nothing against John Maynard Keynes. I don't even hold any blame on him for bad effects of policies pursued these days, because governments only follow those ideas which match their imperatives, and not what they are influenced under through any force of reason by academics.
I do however find that he has the dubious misfortune of being the most deified economist to be ever known in public view. Stiglitz and Galbraith often address their ideas by glorifying what a great thinker and a man Keynes was. The label applied by them on their own ideas is neither "regulationism" or "institutionalism", but "Keynesianism". Their approach to vindicating the "Keynesian tradition" is based on more or less saying "Keynes said so".
Forget Keynes, for heaven's sake. Focus on ideas and the problems at hand. Keynes died 62 years ago, dead for as long as he had been alive. If your ideas have legitimacy, do not back them on the credentials of another economist. Have those ideas stand up on their rightfulness and virtue.
What's the point of making a celebrity out of an economist? If an economist points out the workings of economic relationships, he has done nothing more than establish an awareness of an existing reality. Economic ideas are based on simply seeing reality as it exists, not manufacturing any invention. If I noticed a particular tree in the woods, I do not call it to be my own, simply on the virtue that I managed to see it. The tree was always there. Pointing out economic patterns does not equate to inventing the radio or the telephone.
I will not for a second try to claim that Austrians are completely innocent of deification (I haven't seen any case of it, however, but I won't discount the possibility). But even the people of the Austrian school have been put under intense scrutiny and criticism by its own people. Mises is not safe from criticism. Hayek is not safe. Even Rothbard is not safe. The ideas followed by people here are based on how they came to it by solely their own reasoning. Even though classical liberalism is the root of many ideas espoused here, most people I see here have gone far beyond classical liberalism, wherein the ideas of having some government have been fully replaced by an honest position of believing in no government.
Keep it to ideas and not people is what I would say.
He is man of the state. The most profligate religion the Earth has ever seen. He justifies it's existence and what is better he existed too. Kind of like a pharaoh. The answer to your question is the deification of any man IMO is a very bad idea.
Criminals, there ought to be a law.
Criminals there ought to be a whole lot more. Bon Scott.
Interesting post.
I suspect the deification of Keynes is because it primarily gives legitimacy and support to the predatory welfare/warfare/corportist state that the Nazi Party ushered into existence. To assail Keynesian dogma would be to question the foundations –– and survival –– of big government. As with environmentalism, marxism (etc), once it becomes 'accepted truth' in certain parts of the establishment (sciences, academia), challenging the tenets becomes a very dangerous career move. Thus people buy into the dogma as a compromise and their resistance eventually fades to nothing, inadvertently perpetuating the (false) holy gospel.
The only way to change perception at that point is for Keynesian economics to effect a cataclysmic destruction of wealth, society and everything that leaves no one untouched, including the establishment. Desperation does the rest.
As for the Austrian School, we certainly are guilty of putting Mises, Menger, Rothbard et al on pedestals. They were afterall brilliant thinkers and deserve the appropriate recognition, but I do think we're also capable of accepting their inconsistencies, errors, flaws and so on.
Ludwig von Mises: "We must see conditions as they really are, not as we want them to be."
AndrewR:As for the Austrian School, we certainly are guilty of putting Mises, Menger, Rothbard et al on pedestals. They were afterall brilliant thinkers and deserve the appropriate recognition, but I do think we're also capable of accepting their inconsistencies, errors, flaws and so on.
I wouldn't say deify though.
Compared to other schools, there is a big deal of healthy internal criticism and revision inside Austrianism (without it thereby fragmenting into 101 different doctrines) and though Austrians revere the school's founders deify them they do not.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
The Cult of Keynes - yes, especially with this resurgence of dunderheads
The Cult of Ayn Rand - definitely yes
The Cult of von Mises - perhaps, but there is no blind obedience required and the man was hardly deified
The Cult of Rothbard - yes, and with a NAP to boot.
When you argue that animal spirits bring market failure can you be anything other then a diety? I mean animal spirits have nothing to do with economics and quiet frankly I think they are getting a bit offended that everyone seems to blame everything on them!
Forgive me if I had somewhat of a sarcastic tone!
Which cult might this be?
Deification is up to each individual student. Being a student of Ayn Rand does not necessarily mean one deifies her, even if there is a high correlation between those who like Rand and those who worship her. I don't doubt that some Austrian/ancaps deify Rothbard, but I don't believe I do, and I would not like to be accused of it.
EDIT: Oh, and of course, the deification of economists is not a good thing. Deification of anyone or anything is not a good thing.
Rule 1:Every school of thought to which one does not belong is a dangerous cult.
bestimmt
Jon Irenicus: The Cult of Rothbard - yes, and with a NAP to boot. Which cult might this be?
The Cult of An-Cap, of course. I'm sure Rothbard would be the first to attack any cult in his own name, but then that's the spirit the cult would most admire.
In general, there is far less deification of economists associated with the Austrian School than the others, but it's hard to ignore men who did so much for the cause. Honor them, yes.
I reiterate, which cult?
K.C. Farmer: Jon Irenicus: The Cult of Rothbard - yes, and with a NAP to boot. Which cult might this be? The Cult of An-Cap, of course. I'm sure Rothbard would be the first to attack any cult in his own name, but then that's the spirit the cult would most admire. In general, there is far less deification of economists associated with the Austrian School than the others, but it's hard to ignore men who did so much for the cause. Honor them, yes.
A cult is always right. Reality is molded to fit with dogma. Rothbard was pretty good at avoiding this problem. Not perfect, but his epistemology does not suffer from false assumptions only incomplete knowledge. The empirical equivalent would be Galileo>Newton>Einstein>Hawking. Rothbard built off of Menger and Mises. This does not imply a cult.
I speak in jest.
A cult of An-Cap is an oxymoron, although I don't doubt there are folks who buy into everything Rothbard has to say.
Well then. It is quite funny. I laughed hard
Saan:A cult is always right. Reality is molded to fit with dogma. Rothbard was pretty good at avoiding this problem. Not perfect, but his epistemology does not suffer from false assumptions only incomplete knowledge. The empirical equivalent would be Galileo>Newton>Einstein>Hawking. Rothbard built off of Menger and Mises. This does not imply a cult.
That would not preclude followers of Rothbard from establishing a cult based on his writings. You just don't see much of this because if you read and follow his writings, you just don't go down that path. Rand, on the other hand, has several groups you may as well call cults.
There has been enough time and work built from the knowledge of Mises that you don't see as much hero worship. Rothbard, being more recent and a Nobel Prize Winner, would be a more likely candidate, but his entire life could be described as anti-cult. He was just as much a critic of Menger and Mises as he was a follower.
K.C. Farmer:That would not preclude followers of Rothbard from establishing a cult based on his writings.
I never said that.
K.C. Farmer: You just don't see much of this because if you read and follow his writings, you just don't go down that path. Rand, on the other hand, has several groups you may as well call cults. There has been enough time and work built from the knowledge of Mises that you don't see as much hero worship. Rothbard, being more recent and a Nobel Prize Winner, would be a more likely candidate, but his entire life could be described as anti-cult. He was just as much a critic of Menger and Mises as he was a follower.
You just don't see much of this because if you read and follow his writings, you just don't go down that path. Rand, on the other hand, has several groups you may as well call cults.
Which makes this your position, not mine.