The conservatives in America are Anglophiles. They don't idolize Keynes although Nixon did. They are followers of Edmund Burke and especially Winston Churchill. We have a bookstore in New York which is basically about Churchill. It's called Chartwell and is founded by the son of one of my old students. His book on Churchill is being released this month. It's rumored that you will be able to see the opening in England as well. My daughter is singing for the opening with her husband. Gilbert and Sullivan.:>)) REH
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 1:07 PM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Futurework] "Efficiency's Promise: Too Go od to Be True" "More Jobs Predicted for Machi nes, Not People" At 16:08 14/04/2012, Darryl wrote: (D) 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]> wrote: Keynes saw the world quite clearly. He saw a future where we wouldn't have create work and worry about unemployment.] (K) Although Keynes was constantly changing his mind in economic theory (even within the same book, such as his Theory), in the above respect Keynes was always of the same opinion. He was a technological optimist. As jobs died, then people would move into a leisured society -- enjoying the same sort of life that Keynes himself had. (D) 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? No, he genuinely believed that everybody would share in the benefits. Although Keynes was never a socialist he had far more concern for the poor than any of the Labour or Liberal politicians or trade unionists that he came into contact with. It was always a case of de haut en bas however. He was a high tower intellectual and was very sarcastic about the abilities of most of those he came into contact with. (Strangely, he and his main ideological enemy, Hayek, got on well socially. They'd spend hours in discussion on a wide variety of subjects. Keynes hepled Hayek enormously at one crucial stage in his life.) Keynes rarely came into contact with the poor. His life centred around Cambridge and London. He never visited the Midlands or the North of England where the bulk of England's wealth in his day had been originally created. (D) 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? (K) The banks in his day were quite different in character from those of today. The commercial banks were reliable and had a duty of care. Bankers had a high reputation and deservedly so. Merchant bankers (from a few of which the modern investment bank evolved) were a mixed lot, generally honest but with some seriously bad eggs among them. Keynes didn't have much time for any of them, considering them intellectually inferior. (D) 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. (K) Governance, whether greedy or otherwise, always asserts itself whatever the condition of society. Order always comes to any society -- and very rapidly, too. Government politicians (and civil servants) are more prone to corruption than most other occupations, but every group or class is potentially greedy if they have the opportunity. Keith 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]> wrote: Keith see the url below Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/1930/our-grandchi <http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/1930/our-grandch i%0Aldren.htm> ldren.htm <http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/1930/our-grandch i%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 Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com <http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/>
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
