Changing Keynes' mind

It is true that Keynes said ?When the facts change, I change my mind ? what do you do, sir??

Would that mean that Keynes would be either Neo-classical or Chicago now, and repudiate Krugman et al. who still adhere to Keynesian theory even though its been relentlessly repudiated both empirically and theoretically?

Just wondering.

[inspired via Crooked Timber]

Share this

"On the other hand, if The

"On the other hand, if The General Theory is regarded as the Keynesians' Bible, his respectful references, in 1946, to 'classical medicine' and to the wisdom of Adam Smith, and his praise of 'the invisible hand,' ought to have caused his faithful apostles to shout 'heresy'! Import controls and exchange controls are, he then said, 'expedients' which would be less necessary if the 'classical medicine' were allowed to work. Had he lived, he might perhaps have gone even farther. 'I was the only non-Keynesian there,' he is said to have remarked after a meeting with Washington economists in 1944."

(Wm. H. Hutt, "The Keynesian Episode -- A Reassessment", 1979, p.20)

heh, too true.

heh, too true.

Even though he later had

Even though he later had misgivings about the validity of his theory, the politico's had none. His theory had/has a perfect resonance in the brains of those kinds of people who love government and all it stands for. Control. This was thier way to 'prove' once and for all that the nation state didn't need a barbarous relic(gold), and along came a theory built for 'them' just like socialism. Dictators the world over must have squealed with ironic laughter(and envy), watching these scumbags implement what they told the sheep was a 'democratic' economic theory in action. New Deal?!?!?? hahahahahaha

"The reasons for the

"The reasons for the extraordinary seductiveness of the notions which Keynes' disciples gradually systematized into 'Keynesianism' and later rehabilitated into 'neo-Keynesianism' concern the psychology of opinion - the genesis of intellectual fashions, creeds, and ideologies. The broad topic is one which began to interest me as a young man, very soon after I had entered academic life in 1928. In 1936 I recorded the results of my early endeavors to clarify my thoughts on the subject in my 'Economists and the Public'. While that book was in the press, 'The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money' was published. I read quickly through such parts of Keynes' book as I could then follow, and I managed to insert an additional, last-minute passage in my own book, which recorded my rapidly acquired impressions. Already in 1936, although I had been bewildered by it, I had seen clearly and predicted that 'The General Theory' would have a quite unparalleled influence by reason of what I judged to be its demerits as a contribution to thought. Its policy implications appeared to have been chosen for their political attractiveness. Its misrepresentations of the 'classical' economists seemed certain to have a powerful appeal (because the teachings of the 'dismal science' had at all times been accepted reluctantly by many who were unable to refute them). Moreover, the obscurities of the 'General Theory' (which I have since come to recognize as due, in every case, to defective thinking), expressed as they were in the language of science, appeared likely to enhance its reputation (for all too many people in all spheres - the academic sphere not excluded - are apt to accept obscurity for profundity).

During the decade preceeding the publication of my 'Keynesianism', Keynesian doctrine seemed to command more confident and uncritical respect than ever in government circles, despite its clear retreat in academic circles. Depression or recession could be met, it was believed, either by encouraging consumption or by taking steps to ensure a more rapid rate of spending. It was the stereotypes which had been formed in this background that I endeavored, in 1963, to challenge. Such ideas were bringing about, I believed, grievous harm in the Western world; and I felt, rather naively perhaps, that my contribution could do something to at least stem the tide.

My main thesis was that the intellectual developments for which Keynes' 'General Theory' appeared to be responsible had caused a setback to scientific thinking about human economic relations at a crucial epoch."


"I can now claim, I think, that my insights were superior to those of economists who initially rejected my thesis. It is relevant to quote the former prime minister of Britain, James Callaghan, who openly confessed in 1977: 'We used to think that you could spend your way out of recession. I tell you, in all candor, that that option no longer exists, and that insofar as it ever did exist, it only worked by injecting bigger doses of inflation into the economy followed by higher level of unemployment as the next step. This is the history of the past twenty years.'"

(Wm. H. Hutt, "The Keynesian Episode - A Reassessment", 1979, Liberty Press, "Prologue", pp. 11-12, 13, emphases original)

"The politicos" aren't interested to learn this lesson, "qwerty". Their interest lies in maintaining the fantasy, and the subject is just deep enough that they can snow the booboisie into believing what they say.

Booboisie?!!?!? hahahahahhah

Booboisie?!!?!? hahahahahhah thats great.

I stole it fair & square

I stole it fair & square from H.L. Mencken.

What I wonder is, stupidity

What I wonder is, stupidity or malice?
That is, was the General Theory intended to be legitimate economic inquiry that just turned out to be fantastically wrong and have horrible political consequences, or were those consequences Keynes' intention all along?

That's a very interesting

That's a very interesting question, as i was just reading a commentary by Jim Dines, who is a black belt thinker , and he had the same question. He stated he thought Keyenes might have known all along it was pure bunk. he called him a rascal(light heartedly). My contention is his theory and others like it, are analogous to that bridge in Washington, they are designed with the best intentions but when they are put to the real world all sorts of ugly unintended things start to happen. They have a potential and an inate resonance, and depending on the group of morons they are released to, the outcomes can be wildly different than the 'lab results'. Socialism, Naziism, all Religions,pre WWII Japan, 1930's America, you name it . You've got to pretty much have a completely willing bunch of idiots to make it work. It has to hit a chord in their stupid brains, for one, and it has to be just intellectually deep enough that they cannot think it through to the outcome, or juxtapose their scenario against other similiar situations. over and over ......