I always accepted what people like Keynes and VON Hayek said about the Soviets and Totalitarianism. I had read all of that stuff about "Socialist Realism" trash and fat Russian women and ballerinas who couldn't afford good ballet shoes dancing in the Bolshoi. I accepted that until the end of the Cold War.
Then I went to a party in New York raising money for a "poor" Russian opera company touring the U.S.. And there she was. I was there with my beautiful wife and she was the first to notice her. All the Russian women in the room were striking. Think Netrebko. But she was amazing. Her hair was up in a bun on her head. Her dress was a radiant gold lace and her posture was beautiful with a slightly haughty toss of the head. She was wearing gold high heel shoes. The dress pulsed and radiated as the light bounced off the sheer lace and off her completely nude body beneath the see through vision. That got me started to thinking about the value of Dick Armey and all of that propaganda about fat Russian women without the fear of God in them. Well she didn't have the fear of God but she certainly reminded and my wife, of the glory of God. We both couldn't stop staring, poor provincial New York City souls that we were. And the Caviar was great as well. Next came the takeover of IBM and the move into silicone valley by the surplus from the Russian educational system that was far superior to what we could do with all of our Keynes and VON Hayeks. Yes, Russian Communism came here and stirred our envy and our competitive feelings amongst the young. But don't fool yourself when a bunch of dowdy English and Austrian economists make the point that they wouldn't have gotten on so well in that system. Of course Keynes knew something that VON Hayek didn't. He married a Russian Ballerina and she of course stole his heart and gave him heart trouble for being so bad at running a theater. I feel like the meat between two pieces of bread. :>)) REH PS I taught a ravishing Bolshoi Ballerina who grew up in the Moscow Romany Theater. All kinds of stereotypes fell away but I did not get involved. Still, I will not read all of this economic horse dokey the same ever again. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sandwichman Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 9:24 PM To: Keith Hudson Cc: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, , EDUCATION Subject: Re: [Futurework] Keynes the convert Keith: "I wasn't referring to what Hayek said about Keynes in his (Hayek's) book." What Keith wrote earlier: "In fact, when Friedrich Hayek opposed Keynes' ideas in his book, "The Road to Serfdom" (1944) Thanks, for clearing that up, Keith. So you weren't referring to what Hayek actually WROTE about Keynes in his book but to some unnamed IDEAS of Keynes that he supposedly OPPOSED in that book. So, either Hayek was a coward for not specifying WHO it was he was criticizing or Keith is jumping to conclusions and attributing intentions to people without any clear evidence. Keith also wrote, "Furthermore, please do not further twist what I have written by implying..." Implication is a tricky business, Keith. As you will see if you actually read my words that you have quoted, my reference is to something Keynes wrote and Hayek commended -- not anything you wrote -- and I'm essentially agreeing with Hayek and Keynes. For you to see "your" words being "twisted" in that operation is a feat either of vanity or paranoia. On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 7:45 AM, Keith Hudson <[email protected]> wrote: > Sandwichman, > > I wasn't referring to what Hayek said about Keynes in his (Hayek's) book. I > was referring to what Keynes thought of Hayek's ideas after reading Hayek's > book. > So let me repeat what I wrote earlier. It is quite easy to understand. > > <<<< > In fact, when Friedrich Hayek opposed Keynes' ideas in his book, "The Road > to Serfdom" (1944) -- as leading to Soviet-style totalitarianism -- Keynes > finally acknowledge that his own main idea had been wrong. He wrote to > Hayek: "In my opinion it is a grand book ... Morally and philosophically I > find myself in agreement with virtually the whole of it: and not only in > agreement with it, but in deeply moved agreement." >>>>> > > Furthermore, please do not further twist what I have written by implying > that I believe that (to use your words) "the market and only the market is > the guarantor of "the maximum degree of efficiency." > > I don't. > > Keith > > At 11:34 11/07/2010 -0700, Sandwichman wrote: > > It's news to me that Schumpeter's creative destruction has been > "largely ignored". Paragraph five contains a remarkable instance of > argument by elision and insinuation. The only reference to Keynes in > "The Road to Serfdom" is a warmly approving citation of his 1915 > critique of the militarization of industrial life in Germany. To say > that Hayek argued that Keynes's ideas would lead to Soviet-style > totalitarianism is a slander against Hayek. To then say that Keynes > acknowledged an argument that Hayek didn't make is then fatuous. But > let's get down to brass tacks. The idea that Hayek is criticizing, and > praising Keynes for criticizing, is summed up in the following: > > "Individualism must come to an end absolutely. A system of regulation > must be set up, the object of which is not the greater happiness of > the individual... but the strengthening of the organized unity of the > state for the object of attaining the maximum degree of efficiency, > the influence of which on individual advantage is only indirect. -- > This hideous doctrine is enshrined in a sort of idealism." > > May I remind Keith that "the object of attaining the maximum degree of > efficiency" is the single overarching rationale for the market > fundamentalism of the last 30 years that has adopted Hayek as its > patron saint? Anyone heard of the Efficient Market Hypothesis? The > stuff is steeped in two things: the worship of "efficiency" and the > dogmatic certainty that the market and only the market is the > guarantor of "the maximum degree of efficiency." > > > > > On 7/11/10, Keith Hudson <[email protected]> wrote: >> John Maynard Keynes was one of the most humane and brilliant minds of the >> last century. At the Versailles Conference after the First World War and >> Germany's defeat, President Clemenceau of France was adamant that millions >> of German civilians should be allowed to starve to death. It was Keynes >> (then a Treasury official) who persuaded Prime Minister Lloyd George to >> oppose Clemenceau's plans and make sure that emergency food was sent. >> >> Unfortunately Keynes was less successful when trying to persuade Lloyd >> George and Clemcnceau not to punish Germany's economy too fiercely. It was >> then that he wrote one of his most famous books, "The Economic >> Consequences >> of the Peace" (1919) when he forecast the German instability that would >> follow France's vengeance. Thus the subsequent Weimar hyperinflation of >> the >> 1920s, the Great Depression which followed and the subsequent outbreak of >> the Second World War did not surprise him. >> >> Brilliant though Keynes was, he was also someone who could never quite >> make >> up his mind on other issues for most of his life. For some years he had a >> homosexual relationship with a young man, Sebastian Sprott at the same >> time >> as one with Lydia Lopokova, a leading ballerina of the 1920s. It became an >> effort of will to finally plump for Lydia, whom he married in 1925 (and a >> happy marriage ensued). >> >> He was equally vacillating about his economic ideas and the book for which >> he is best known, his "General Theory", is self-contradictory in places -- >> which he acknowledged himself later. His main fault is that he said (most >> of the time anyway) that money was the prime motivator of consumer goods >> consumption and that if governments showered money on people in bad times >> then they would start buying goods and the economy would recover. But >> money >> is only a transient intermediary. It's the attractiveness of the goods >> themselves which causes people to work hard, save money and buy them. >> >> In fact, when Friedrich Hayek opposed Keynes' ideas in his book, "The Road >> to Serfdom" (1944) -- as leading to Soviet-style totalitarianism -- Keynes >> finally acknowledge that his own main idea had been wrong. He wrote to >> Hayek: "In my opinion it is a grand book ... Morally and philosophically I >> find myself in agreement with virtually the whole of it: and not only in >> agreement with it, but in deeply moved agreement." >> >> Furthermore, only ten days before he died of a heart attack in 1946 he >> told >> Henry Clay at a Bank of England lunch that he was finally a convert to >> Adam >> Smith's primary idea of the invisible hand. He said: "I find myself more >> and more relying for a solution of our problems on the invisible hand >> which >> I tried to eject from economic thinking twenty years ago." >> >> Keynes was brilliant enough to be able to change his mind -- and not to be >> ashamed when he did so. Unfortunately, that cannot be said of some public >> economists who are certainly clever but nowhere near as brilliant as >> Keynes >> or -- dare I say it? -- Hayek. >> >> Incidentally, the other great economist of the last century who also >> argued >> forcefully against Keynes' earlier ideas was Joseph Schumpeter, someone >> whose ideas of "creative destruction" are largely ignored because they're >> uncomfortable. But as we're living in uncomfortable times perhaps some of >> our public economists ought to do some reading of him also. >> >> Keith >> >> Keith Hudson, Saltford, England > > > -- > Sandwichman > > Keith Hudson, Saltford, England -- Sandwichman _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
