
The indefatigable efforts of J. M. Keynes - fanf2
https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/jm-keynes-footnotes-to-plato/
======
lewis500
"This revolutionary theory – his Liquidity Preference Theory – is still
considered too radical to be acceptable today."

What? Liquidity preference was taught in my undergrad macro class using the
textbook by Greg Mankiw. It's the basis of the IS/LM model. And central banks
are constantly worrying about interest rates and liquidity. To whom is it too
radical? Probably some people disagree with it, but I wouldn't call it very
"radical" today. The author is fighting straw men.

~~~
lottin
Exactly right. And the IS/LM model, which is Hicks's interpretation of
Keynes's General Theory, is the basis of current macroeconomic theory.

~~~
nickik
People always talk about Keynes but its really Hicks interpretation that got
everybody on that track.

------
zackmorris
Short summary of the difference between supply-side (Milton Friedman)
economics vs demand-side (John Maynard Keynes) economics:

[https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/012615/what-
differe...](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/012615/what-difference-
between-keynesian-economics-and-monetarist-economics.asp)

My main experience with this on a microeconomic level was during the housing
bubble and recovery. I tried working at home flipping used Macintosh computers
to sell on eBay and found that as money got tighter and tighter around the
country, prices kept falling from $300-500 in the course of a year to $150-300
and eventually I couldn't make any money at it.

Part of this was the natural drop in price of electronics but part of it was
also the fact that everyone was broke so demand for computers fell. I think we
could do a lot for the US economy by putting more money in the hands of
consumers and raising demand. We could also think about what people are
buying, and start investing in projects that pay off in the long run
(renewable energy, permaculture, automation etc) vs projects that are
unsustainable (coal, monocropping, the service economy).

The fact that most people have never really heard of these sorts of
government-driven public works since roughly the late 70s tells me that
supply-side economics won. But I think on a local level, we might see a
resurgence in demand-side economics with recycling, cooperatives, some level
of universal basic income - things that make life easier for working people.
At least, I thought that before the last presidential election. But if people
are looking for hope in these times, Keynesian economics is a great place to
start.

~~~
nickik
I'm sorry but your comment and the post you link to is complete nonsense
economically and worse applied to Keynes and Friedman is utterly wrong. The
article you linked is an honestly an embarrassment.

Furthermore nothing in the actual economics of either of these two people puts
them squarely in the supply-side/demand-side 'camp' and furthermore those
terms are used competently wrongly to the point of meaninglessness in public
discussion anyway.

I don't want to get into a long post here, but your way oversimplifying the
issue economist discuss to a point where it borders on satire.

To get a somewhat better understanding in a short time:

\-
[https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/KeynesianEconomics.html](https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/KeynesianEconomics.html)
(written by Alan S. Blinder)

If you are further interested in the history of economists long dead,
consider:

\- [https://www.mruniversity.com/courses/great-economists-
classi...](https://www.mruniversity.com/courses/great-economists-classical-
economics-and-its-forerunners)

~~~
zackmorris
So you're a Friedman fan I take it? _ducks_

~~~
nickik
I'm a fan of R. G. Hawtrey

------
person_of_color
Is there an "Economics for Hackers" resource or book that isn't tainted by
political bias?

~~~
cuchoi
What would you like to see in a book like that? Seems an interesting idea

~~~
person_of_color
Why rich countries/cultures are rich and poor countries/cultures are poor.

------
UncleEntity
> Worse, it has led to increasingly frequent financial crises. These began
> first on the fringes of the global economy (in the 1970s and 80s), but in
> 2007–9 moved to its core, the US and Europe.

Far as I got in TFA...

Anyone who doesn't recognize "financial crises" have been going on for, like,
forever probably isn't that much of an expert on the subject to even consider
their argument.

~~~
ashrk
The first of the "increasingly frequent financial crises", I should think, is
what's intended. Not the first one period. Not to defend that point—my
background is little help here—but I think yours is a misreading.

~~~
hellogoodbyeeee
Recessions have become increasingly less frequent since Keyenes.

I think there may be an argument around the US experiencing fewer, but greater
in magnitude recessions, but im not sure of the specifics.

~~~
neffy
No you´re right. The banking system was bouncing up and down like a yo-yo in
the 19th century, on average there was a crisis every 10-12 years (also
astonishingly regular). The mean time to crisis is several years longer these
days.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
We had a respite after the Depression and banking regulations. Then Reagan(?)
and deregulation, and now we're right back to the yo-yo

~~~
nickik
Bank failures were very common in the US specifically, especially in the GD.
The reason is that the US had 10000s of banks because of a regulation called
'Unit Banking'. This made banks incredibly weak (not diversified) to shocks
and failed often. Because of other problem in the US system this often lead to
lots of banking failures. 1000s of them went down in the GD for example.
Compare to Canada where no bank failed (there were less in the first place of
course).

It was deregulation that finally abolished that absurd practice along with
other changes, including some more regulation, and the removal of lots of old
regulation that lead to an improved banking system.

The Depression of 1929-1933 was followed very quickly by a recession in 1937
but banks didn't fail anymore. Pretty much every economist agree that the
reason was the FDIC and the consolidation of the banking system in the
following years.

To track bank failures today on deregulation in the 80s is a really hard sell,
if you study the history of banking you will see huge changes in regulatory
structure, types of regulation and so on all the time, including after Reagan.
To sell the old 'evil republic deregulation is cause of all evil' story is
always easy but unless you are at a political rally it is a pretty meaningless
statement.

------
gweinberg
I think Keynes is a lot more comparable to Freud than to Darwin. Hugely
inspirational in his day, inspired a lot of interesting ideas, clearly a very
bright guy. But not necessarily ever right about anything, or at least
anything new.

------
nickik
This article contains so much nonsense its hard to comprehend how this is not
an attempt at satire.

It seems the anther has read some Keynes and has defined a whole new history
around it.

I highly recommend people against reading this text, it represents the worse
kind of historical rewriting and reinterpretation to serve the needs the
person writing it.

I would also point out that a lot of the insights that Kaynes made popular and
enjoyed wide popularity from the 1950 to 1970s has since gone away. The
theories today called 'New Keynesian' really are far more evolution of 70s
monetarism.

> Keynes’s development of the science of macroeconomics goes largely
> unacknowledged by a profession still

So all of this is wrong. In no meaningful way did Keynes develop the science
of macroeconomics.

There were working on the exact same topics as him for a very long time before
him. One might argue that he was the most well known macro economist in
England at the time, but that's about it.

Furthermore, the idea that Keynes is 'unacknowledged' is unfathomably wrong.
There are macro economics schools today that refer to themselves as 'New-
Keynesian', 'Post-Keynesian' or 'Old Keynesian'.

> by a profession still steeped in classical microeconomics

I don't even know what he is referring to. Nobody does 'classical' economics
since the 1870 (except some forms of Marxist economics).

