Noting the three comments below from 3 different minds (therefore 3
differing viewpoints, I can see the difficulty with understanding Keynes
vision. How can we know what he intended with his words as they came
from a different time with different issues and needs? Second guessing
someone's intentions (usually from a very different perspective) can
never achieve that which was first conceived.
For example, Arthur's comment [On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Arthur
Cordell <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Keynes saw the world quite clearly. He saw a future where we
wouldn't have
create work and worry about unemployment.]
Would that mean /everyone /had such a fine job that all one's needs were
meet and there were no other wants (no advertising of useless, but
according to some needed, items to show status -- thank you Tom -
below)? Or, does it mean that the poor stay as drudges for the benefit
of the lay-about wealthy?
And how can we guess Keynes intent regarding banks (-- thanks Ed
--below) (or those who would pull the strings of a country's future -
whether bank, investor, or corporate pressure) if it was not
specifically dealt with and talked about ad nauseam?
As good as something may sound /at the time/, just as with life, ideas
are fleeting and require constant revision and re-evaluation which is
what this group is attempting to do. But, if there is a blackness
(whether or not intended) surrounding the basic tenet, then I believe
all one can do is take as a lead the one or two clear positives for the
present time, throw the rest out and re-postulate an entirely new
paradigm for the benefit of the entire population considered.
But without any form of empathy from /those who would rule for their own
favour/, ultimately the system of thought will be perverted. So long as
the rapaciousness of greed is allowed to flourish by governments, there
will be no stability and the total system of governance and the society
will ultimately fail.
Darryl
On 13/04/2012 12:41 PM, Tom Walker wrote:
...
The same objection can raised against this essay in prophecy that was
raised against Keynes' earlier "Economic Possibilities for our
Grandchildren": that it assumes that all material wants in the wealthy
nations will be quickly saturated, and that it completely ignores the
capital needs of the poor countries. In these respects Keynes was a
child of his times. He did not foresee that technology would constantly
create new products and underestimated the ability of advertising
constantly to create new wants. Above all, he did not foresee the
postwar population explosion in the developing countries. This factor,
more than anything else, has rendered his prophecy academic.
...
On Behalf Of Ed Weick
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 2:12 PM
Not sure that you have Keynes and Marx right here, Keith. When I studied
economics, Keynesianism was still very much the vogue. I don't recall that
his solutions were to be applied via the banks or printing money. Rather,
the idea was to involve large scale public works etc. when the private
sector ran out of steam and the public sector had to kick in. I suppose
that borrowing and printing money might have been part of this, but it was
not emphasized. As for Marx, the ideas were very good, but how would you
ever do what he recommended. Well, as Lenin and Stalin demonstrated, the
state would do it, and in doing it, they would convert a humane idea into a
horror show.
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Arthur Cordell
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Keith see the url below Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/1930/our-grandchi
ldren.htm
<http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/1930/our-grandchi%0Aldren.htm>
Keynes saw the world quite clearly. He saw a future where we
wouldn't have
create work and worry about unemployment.
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
