News: The Keynes Solution
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/10507/do-we-really-need-a-book-on-this/
Do we really need a book on this?
Previous post: Left-Libertarians on Rothbardian Abandonment
Next post: The Porn Bust
Previous post: Left-Libertarians on Rothbardian Abandonment
Next post: The Porn Bust
{ 24 comments }
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.
But everybody knows heat is transferred by caloric – only a few diehards believe that silly energy theory.
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.
“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!”
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.
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.
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?
“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.
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.
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).
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
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.
The title of the appendix is hilarious. What planet is this guy from?
“The Keynes Solution”
We should trademark this name for an enema!
Nope, Walt D, enema implies cleansing and health. The book’s name is suited better for describing anal rape.
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?
I am looking forward to the day when the Keynesian philosophy is all but forgotten – except as a reminder of what not to do.
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.
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.
There are probably people who believe the earth is flat and is the center of the universe. This fits in that category.
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.
Here is a classic example from today’s headlines of disguising an ancient pile of horsesh&t with new euphemisms.
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:
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
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.