1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/10507/do-we-really-need-a-book-on-this/

Do we really need a book on this?

August 22, 2009 by

News: The Keynes Solution

{ 24 comments }

Giant Joe August 22, 2009 at 8:39 pm

We haven’t followed Keynes? …and that’s why there is uncertainty? …And today’s macroeconomic models are based on something other than Keynesian economics?

It’s sad to know that people will read that stuff, take it for fact as something that works, and then fail to be critical about it. Oh well.

BioTube August 22, 2009 at 10:15 pm

But everybody knows heat is transferred by caloric – only a few diehards believe that silly energy theory.

Bruce Koerber August 22, 2009 at 10:29 pm

In the midst of the Dark Ages of economics this kind of reading material fills the shelves and stifles the minds of the pathetically dogmatic and confused institutions and individuals.

When the book cover and title is a lie then the content necessarily is of no value to humankind.

KSB29 August 22, 2009 at 11:35 pm

“Do we really need a book on this?”

Yes, in the same way that the world needs “Mein Kampf” and “Das Kapital.” We need it so that when future generations wonder where things went wrong, they can read works that lets them see what insane ideas the leaders of the time believed and the path they chose.

100 years from now, I hope than when the next nitwit in charge comes up with the idea that you can just print and borrow your way to riches, someone will pull out a copy, wave it around, and say: “We’ve already been down that road and we all saw where that lead!”

Jonathan Finegold Catalán August 22, 2009 at 11:51 pm

“Paul Davidson is the keeper of the Keynesian flame. Keynes lives (intellectually), and Davidson is one of the reasons.”–Alan S. Blinder, Gordon S. Rentschler Memorial Professor of Economic and Public Affairs, Princeton University

So, is Mr. Blinder admitting that if they did not publish a book on Keynes every so often, the “Keynesian flame” would die? You’d think that for such a “revolutionary” economic school of thought they could survive based on the logic of their theory. Apparently not.

Dennis August 23, 2009 at 12:00 am

Since at least the late 1920s, worldwide economic policy and mass opinion have been driven largely by one form or another of Keynesian economics. For someone to deny this involves either ignorance, an inability to grasp reality, or a willful lack of honesty.

P.M.Lawrence August 23, 2009 at 1:50 am

KSB29 wrote ’100 years from now, I hope than when the next nitwit in charge comes up with the idea that you can just print and borrow your way to riches, someone will pull out a copy, wave it around, and say: “We’ve already been down that road and we all saw where that lead!”‘

I sincerely hope they don’t say that. I would much rather they said “…we all saw where that led“.

What is it with gratuitous illiteracy that not only adds to ambiguity but also actually takes more effort?

Eiffudcm August 23, 2009 at 4:39 am

“Today’s financial crisis has led to a widespread lack of confidence in the laissez faire style of economic policy.”

Well, that’s about all we need to know about this book.

John Boyle August 23, 2009 at 5:36 am

I dislike the language, “Do we really need…?” I’ve heard anti-capitalists criticize perceived excesses of the free market in the same way: “Do we really need: 10,000-acre mansions, private jets, climate-controlled driveways; thousands of brands of cereal, potato chips, and tomato sauce; a car as big and heavy as an SUV…?” The answer is that the production of those items is literally not your business–and by the way, either someone does find these things useful enough to be worth their cost, or else whoever produces these things will lose money and have to leave the market.

“We” do not “need” the book, or any other good. It’s just that some people value a good more than its market price, and some others value the market price more than the cost to produce it, so the second group produce it and sell it to the first. Criticize the ideas of the author and reviewers as harshly as you want, or even just laugh at them and their wrongheadedness (in which case you’re only talking to people who already agree with you, which is fine if that’s what you want to do). But do not complain about the free market process, or else I may get annoyed and write a comment like this.

BioTube August 23, 2009 at 7:43 am

John, one of the rights of the market is to complain about its excesses.

Lawrence, I hope that in a hundred years they’ll finally start fixing English spelling to get rid of homographs(read, lead, record, etc).

Jeremiah Dyke August 23, 2009 at 8:25 am

Guys! It’s simple,

{Lim N–>0 of {[(8/19)(pi^3)-fnInt(5x^(1/2)sin[3x^-1], x, -5395, 3672)]^N}/N-4}^0 = economic prosperity

P.M.Lawrence August 23, 2009 at 9:58 am

BioTube, that was not a problem with a homograph being there, it was a problem with someone imagining there was one. Getting rid of homographs wouldn’t fix it, as the screw up comes from inventing one.

jc butte August 23, 2009 at 1:12 pm

The title of the appendix is hilarious. What planet is this guy from?

Walt D. August 23, 2009 at 1:36 pm

“The Keynes Solution”
We should trademark this name for an enema!

Vanmind August 23, 2009 at 2:12 pm

Nope, Walt D, enema implies cleansing and health. The book’s name is suited better for describing anal rape.

Brian Gladish August 23, 2009 at 2:51 pm

I agree with both John Boyle’s statement and Jeffrey Tucker’s sentiment. It drives me crazy when people say, “Just what we need, another fill-in-the-blank.” I’ve heard this statement in reference to Chinese restaurants and even golf courses at Pebble Beach. But, of course, Mr. Tucker’s statement is hardly anti-capitalistic, but merely an outgrowth of the frustration of seeing decades (going on a century) of error finding a market, while even the so-called capitalists that we see in the media do not mention ABCT, von Mises or Hayek. The knowledge is there – how long will it be before the world drinks of it?

Conservative Economics August 23, 2009 at 5:52 pm

I am looking forward to the day when the Keynesian philosophy is all but forgotten – except as a reminder of what not to do.

Ohhh Henry August 23, 2009 at 8:58 pm

Yes as a matter of fact we do need a another book on this. As LvM pointed out, every so often it is necessary to dress up the old fallacies in new rhetoric.

Current August 24, 2009 at 4:24 am

Walt D: “‘The Keynes Solution’ We should trademark this name for an enema!”

It reminds me of the Shelock Holmes mystery “The Seven Percent Solution”.

Anyway, Davidson is a Post-Keynesian, unlike most of the Keynesians around today who are New-Keynesians. What we’re seeing here is an attempt to jump on the bandwagon.

Jeff August 24, 2009 at 6:42 am

There are probably people who believe the earth is flat and is the center of the universe. This fits in that category.

HayeksHeros August 24, 2009 at 10:05 am

The book will be out just in time for our Congress personnel to read over the Labor Day break. Since they are so adept at reading 1000 page bills overnight, this 208 page monolith should be a breeze read at cocktail hour.

Ohhh Henry August 24, 2009 at 10:29 am

Here is a classic example from today’s headlines of disguising an ancient pile of horsesh&t with new euphemisms.

Give Central Bankers More Room to End Stability Threats: Carney

Jason McIntyre
Saturday, August 22, 2009

The Bank of Canada governor is giving broad hints that he wants an expanded mandate to prevent future fiscal meltdowns.

Saturday, in front of key global policy makers in Wyoming, Mark Carney expressed his views on the current economic crisis.

Carney believes central bankers should be given the freedom to use monetary policy to rein in financial markets.

His agreement with the federal government is restricted to controlling inflation.

That deal – to maintaining a strict two per cent target – expires in 2011.

Now more than ever we need books like “The Keynes Solution”.

P.S. for those who need to be brought up to speed on Canadian monetary policy:

Before joining the public service, Carney had a thirteen-year career with Goldman Sachs in its London, Tokyo, New York and Toronto offices. His progressively senior positions included co-head of sovereign risk; executive director, emerging debt capital markets; and managing director, investment banking. He worked on South Africa’s post-apartheid venture into international bond markets, and was heavily involved in Goldman Sachs’s work with the 1998 Russian financial crisis.

Caveman August 24, 2009 at 6:40 pm

Gotta love Jamie Galbraith’s endorsement of the book: “Paul Davidson has given us a timely and lucid answer to the important question: What would Keynes have said?”

WWKHS

Greg August 25, 2009 at 8:31 am

jc butte,

I cannot agree more. For those who cannot find it, the title of the appendix is:
“Why Keynes’s Ideas Were Never Taught in American Universities”

Are we sure this writer isn’t also a “journalist” for theonion.com?

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: