Do you respect John Maynard Keynes, as a thinker, as an economist, as a man?
I do.
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
No.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
I honestly know far too little about the man behind the nonsense to go either way. I certainly don't respect his THEORIES, though.
No. Life's hard enough without folks like Keynes coming in and fouling the works because he can't think his way out of a paper bag, and/or he can't raise himself above being a sycophant.
Good writer though.
"Conza88, you don't need to care."
That's great, because I don't - not about your opinions. But what would have been helpful / interesting is seeing your reasoning. As usual you don't provide it. That would involve you putting yourself out & thus becoming open to criticism. Wouldn't want that would you.
What do you call a person who joins a religious forum and asks the community if they respect the devil? My guess is bored.
i wonder how many people responding to this thread have read Keynes and not simply his detractors. of those who have read Keynes, i wonder how many approached his work already knowing how they would react.
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
@Student
I'll concede. Clearly you are smarter and more well informed than anyone who posts in these forums. This is what you're aiming to demonstrate, no?
I mean, why bother positing an argument when, by the veneer of intellectual superiority that you busily coat your posts with, you can avoid putting any substantive thought into the public record?
The answer, clearly, must be that the veracity of whatever argument you might choose to forward ought be taken for granted---for your authority and superiority precedes you after all.
Good grief, man. Get over yourself. Sack up and say something other than "Wow, don't I look good in the mirror!" Say something worth saying.
Edit: The above is directed at Student. I've added an "@Student". Sorry for any confusion. Not surprised, however, if people are thinking I was speaking to OP.
This is a very tough question. Keynes, like Mises and Hayek, began with Wicksell's monetary framework, but seemed to ignore the fact that Wicksell employed Bohm-Bawerk's capital theory. He accurately described one-half of the puzzle, namely the effects of an elevated market rate above the natural rate, and what Hayek called "secondary phenomena," but he focused too much on the Wicksellian rot, and, again, entirely ignored capital. Essentially, he was a very confused Austrian economist who was trained in the Marshallian tradition. But he did highlight the fact that prices do not adjust instantaneously and that uncertainty is important.
That being said, the GT was crap, especially chapters 19 and 23, and his character was questionable.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
And it's not the first time. How unorigional. *yawn*
@Esuric
Sounds like you are quite steeped in a lot of this: a lot going on in your post---much of which I haven't heard before. Not that I should have, necessarily...I'm by far no expert in either side of this.
For example, I've not heard before that Keynes, Mises, and Hayek begin with Wicksell's "monetary framework" (whatever that means, exactly). And being no expert on Keynes, I've neither understood nor heard before that he "accurately described...the effects of an elevated market rate...". This is news to me---the "accurately" part that is. Not saying I disagree---I can't say definiatively either way.
I think it's a bit much, however, to characterize Keynes as anything resembling an Austrian economist---to my knowledge, the essence of an Austrian economist is the employment of methodological individualism. Keynes, decidedly, did not do this.
I also think the merit given Keynes for "reminding the economic community that prices do not adjust instantanously" is an empty prize which overlooks the distinction that in free markets (which Keynes did not analyze) prices DO adjust instantaneously, for all practical purposes.
And the "uncertainty" argument---not clear what you mean here.
Animal spirits is the most ridiculous concept. Keynes had to come up with it to make his theory consistent with observed phenomena. Keynes and his follower would represent recessions caused by monetary phenomena by a left shift in LM curve. Since interest rates are on the vertical axis, a shift in LM curve results in a higher interest rate. This is inconsistent with the observed falling interest rate in the real world during recessions. On the other hand, if you shift IS curve to the left, the result is a lower interest rate. In order to make his bogus theory work, Keynes had to come up with a ridiculous concept such as animal spirits to explain leftward shifts in IS curve. He and his followers basically proclaimed that monetary phenomena are not nor have ever been causes of recessions. And they said this because it was convenient. This is a very dishonest action on his part that pushed mainstream economic theory back to 17th century. Because of this I have very little respect for him.
@ conza88
Yea, just look in the "Government is Efficient" thread. Same deal. You're shocked, I know.
Please don't give him any more ideas.
Well there he at least presented / alluded to some kind of argument.
The same cannot be said for this thread and the one I was referring to earlier. Notice anything similar? lol
^There's someone here who has Ted Bundy as their profile pic lol.
Hahaha. That would be me. I have been meaning to change it to a different criminal or something. Just a thing I'm interested in.
What do you call a person who joins a religious forum and asks the community if they respect the devil?
Thumbs up.
nd being no expert on Keynes, I've neither understood nor heard before that he "accurately described...the effects of an elevated market rate...".
When the market rate of interest rises above the natural rate, or the rate at which real capital would be exchanged in a theoretical barter economy (reflecting time preference). The effects are a contracted structure of production, where warranted economic activities are constricted, squeezing profits, ultimately causing deflation (an elevated demand for cash holdings). Individuals begin to decrease purchases and elevate sales (as well as sell bonds) in order to attain the cash balances they demand for transactions (or for safety). The structure of production, in such circumstances, does not reflect the true time preference of society--it is arbitrarily shortened (more direct methods) and prices fall faster than costs. Wicksell claimed that such a condition would yield a "rot," or an uncontrollable deflationary spiral. But prices will eventually adjust, restoring cash balances.
to characterize Keynes as anything resembling an Austrian economist---to my knowledge, the essence of an Austrian economist is the employment of methodological individualism.
Austrian in the sense that he employed the Wicksellian framework and stressed uncertainty. Wicksell's Interest and Prices is the cornerstone of Austrian monetary and business cycle theory (later expanded upon by Mises and Hayek). Wicksell, like Keynes (until the GT), had an endogenous view of money, where he rejected the mechanical quantity theory of money, and showed that the interest rate is the indirect transmission mechanism. Keynes retreated from this position in the GT, thanks to Hayek (he treated money as an exogenously fixed policy variable).
Absolutely not. There are endogenous rigidities and imperfect/asymmetric information.
He wrote a lot about uncertainty, especially when it came to interest rates/investment. Not much more to say, really.