I know little about Keynes. But I seem to recall that he wrote a sane and humane document about how WOrld War I should have been settled. (I think I read it some years ago.)
As we know, the conditions imposed on Germany at "Versailles" virtually assured what we now call: a payback. Maybe I misremember. But if I am right, then there are other criteria for judging Keynes than economics narrowly considered. \brad mccormick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I think Keith is being a bit harsh with Keynes. And with the welfare state > as well. > > Coming out of WW2 nations were concerned that the depression would > re-emerge. There was a great deal of fear that unemployment would occur > once again. Hence the (about 1946) legislation in the US (and elsewhere) > to aim toward full employment as a national goal. > > Sure there are "bad guys" everywhere, but the intent of Keynes and the > impact of his work and thinking was to make the lives of all of us > considerably better. No magic solutions, but the work of a good dentist (as > Keynes claimed economists should see themselves.) > > (I know this won't get settled, but just had to put my 3 cents in---with > inflation.) > > arthur > > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Hudson [mailto:khudson@;handlo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 4:05 PM > To: Ed Weick > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Last words? ( was Re: Moral hazard (was Re: Or poorer > > Ed, > > At 13:54 30/10/02 -0500, you wrote: > >Keith, we are in danger of going on and on and on, but I really do want > >another word. There really was deflation in the 1930s. And there really > >was a Great Depression in which economies ground to a standstill and in > >which many millions of people were unemployed. Though I hate revealing my > >age, I'm old enough I remember my father being very angry when he had to > >apply for "relief", riding the freight trains to Alberta to try of find a > >job, and seriously thinking about breaking windows to get our family > >deported to Poland. > > Touché. My father was a skilled toolroom worker and was out of work for > several years during the Depression. I wore second-hand clothes until I was > 15. I never saw or used ordinary toilet soap or paper until I was 15 or 16. > > > (EW) > >I don't think people who tried to find solutions to the > >situation should be characterized as being patronizing do-gooders who were > >little different from the landed classes they supposedly replaced. Simply > >having wealth should not be taken to mean that you don't have a social > >conscience. There were many social reformers who came out of wealthy > >backgrounds, Robert Owen, for example, or the Fabians. > > I'm afraid that's how I characterise them. On reading Robert Skidelsky's > biography of John Maynard Keynes (three volumes -- 5" thick in total -- > more than 1500 pages) one won't find any evidence of his ever having spoken > to an ordinary working man in the whole of his life (except perhaps a > proctor or two at the university). Now I am not saying that Keynes (like > Robert Owen) was not well-meaning or not kindly-disposed to ordinary > people, but he had absolutely no idea of what they were or how they > thought. The nearest current living example we have is Anthony > Wedgewood-Benn, a Labour MP for over 40 years and as left-wing as any. But > he hardly ever speaks to ordinary people (except from a platform). Like > Keynes, he has great family wealth (in Benn's case, held in a trust, so it > can probably be passed on to his [MP] son without paying inheritance tax). > In my past active political life I knew two or three peers of the realm of > a similar sort -- rich and influential people whose heart was definitely in > the right place as far as ordinary people were concerned -- but who really > had no idea about them. (I know that Churchil had aristocratic origins so > he's not an example of the reformist liberal types I'm mentioning here -- > but, like Keynes and his ilk, he never ever had the experience of > travelling on a London omnibus or going into a shop to buy ordinary goods!) > > (EW) > >Keynes was neither a socialist nor a do gooder. All he did was look into > >the matter of why economics, as taught in the 19th century and the earlier > >part of the 20th, could not explain why capitalist economies suffered > >periodic depressions. IMHO, neither his analysis nor his recommendations > >were what ended the Great Depression. > > True. The irony is that if Keynes' methods had been tried during the 30s > they would probably have helped greatly at the time (although there would > have a price to be paid later). One of the reasons that made the Depression > stick (in England) for so long (compared with the fairly brief trade > recessions of the previous century) was that, for reasons of imperialist > obstinacy, Churchill (then Chancellor) fixed the pound at too high a price. > > Keynesianism only came into play when the new young Oxbridge economists of > the 30s had matured and reached positions of power within the Treasury > after WWII. Keynesianism was then used to "fine-tune" the economy (or so > they thought) even though it wasn't necessary and, in due course, brought > about the galloping inflation that we're talking about here. > > (EW) > WWII did that, and it also led to a > >prolonged postwar boom catalyzed by "pent-up demand" and the need to > >reconstruct Europe. If he has a lasting legacy, I would suggest that it is > >the identification of government as a major player in the economy. > >Following Keynes, governments could no longer hide behind laissez-faire > >arguments that the economy was solely a matter for the markets. They had > to > >do what governments are supposed to do - govern. > > You see governments coming into play as necessary (and benign!) agents in > hard times. I see governments as being places to which ambitious people are > constantly attracted. These people may be anywhere on a scale between being > reasonably well-disposed and crooks/nasty people of the deepest hue -- but > nevertheless, all of them like power and will not give it up willingly. In > my industrial life I knew scores and scores of men who were offered > promotion (sometimes with more earnings, sometimes not, but always with > more power, of course). I never knew a single person who ever turned > promotion down. > > >I've read nothing by Keynes, or about him, that suggested that he favoured > a > >welfare state. As I tried to argue previously, both socialism and the > >welfare state came out of different traditions, both of which have a long > >history. While that history has included do-gooders, it has also included > >many people on the front lines who were willing to lay down their lives for > >a fairer and more just society. > > True, Keynes wasn't a socialist but he was much inclined to state welfarism > -- whether of the Beveridge variety or as financial support for > (middle-class) performing arts. He was well within the liberal-welfare > state tradition (which is called socialism today) which started from about > the 1870s (when Forster nationalised the schools by trickery) and persisted > through until (I suggest) the 1970/80s. > > On these matters of welfarism, I suppose we'll have to leave our discussion > hanging in the air as usual! > > Keith > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- > Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England > Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ________________________________________________________________________ -- Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) <![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
