At 18:39 14/04/2012, REH wrote:
The conservatives in America are Anglophiles. They don't idolize
Keynes although Nixon did.
(KH) Nixon didn't either, even though he said (ironically): "We are
all Keynesians now". When Nixon established wage and price controls,
Keynes would never have approved (in peace-time anyway). He would
have advised Nixon to tax the rich and cut back on military
expenditure. From Nixon's time onwards American, economists turned
away from Keynesianism pretty broadly. They'd probably have stayed
that way if, at the time of the dotcom recession in 2000, America had
had a half-way competent Fed Chairman (such as Volcker) instead of
Greenspan. Not only did he seriously damage the American economy, he
led the way for the appointment of a full-bloodied Keynesian academic
who's wrecking it even further. But even he (Bernanke) is having
doubts. You don't have to read much between the lines of his latest
public statement to realize this. The brief revival of Keynesianism
up to about last year is already withering on the branch as far as an
increasing number of economists are concerned.
Keith
(REH) 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 <<mailto:[email protected]>[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
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
Keith see the url below Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren
<http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/1930/our-grandchi%0Aldren.htm>http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/1930/our-grandchi
<http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/1930/our-grandchi%0Aldren.htm>ldren.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
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England
<http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/>http://allisstatus.wordpress.com
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
