“Between the years of 1911 to 1915 John Maynard Keyes was the principal reviewer of German Books for Economic Journal (see footnote 12, here)” It was during this time frame that “Maynard”, as Rothbard often referred to him, reviewed Mises path breaking 1912 book Theory of Money and Credit to which his primary response was “it is critical rather than constructive, dialectical and not original”
Though it may sound quite odd that Keynes would utter such words about one of the most rigorous treatises on money to ever appear in print we would later read about how horrible Keynes’ German actually was.
In his book John Maynard Keynes: Critical Responses Robert McCann states “That he could not speak German with any fluency is well attested by those who heard him once open an English lecture to a German audience with a brief apology in German” and “He [Keynes] read German indeed, but not with any great facility, and he said on one occasion that he never comprehended through the medium of German an idea that was new to him”
Given the above accounts of Keynes we might say that he ranks at a level 2 on the ILR scale for language proficiency
- able to satisfy routine social demands and limited work requirements
- can handle with confidence most basic social situations including introductions and casual conversations about current events, work, family, and autobiographical information
- can handle limited work requirements, needing help in handling any complications or difficulties; can get the gist of most conversations on non-technical subjects (i.e. topics which require no specialized knowledge), and has a speaking vocabulary sufficient to respond simply with some circumlocutions
- has an accent which, though often quite faulty, is intelligible
- can usually handle elementary constructions quite accurately but does not have thorough or confident control of the grammar.
So why would an educated individual such as Keynes, who clearly lacked the command of the German language formally engage in offering critical responses for books in German? I will leave you with what McCann calls a “characteristic quotation” to display Keynes’ pretensions pursuit to truth.
“In writing a book of this kind the author must, if he is to put his point of view clearly, pretend sometimes to a little more conviction than he feels. He must give his own argument a chance, so to speak, nor be to ready to depress its vitality with a wet cloud of doubt”
Of all things you might consider this quote applied to, Keynes was actually speaking to his writings on probability.
{ 29 comments }
One wonders what the course of human history would have been like in the 20th century if Keynes had actually understood what he was reading?
There would have been some other figure to appear that gave academic cover to government spending. And that fellow would have been vaulted to the highest position of respect and authority for his beliefs.
Any easy trick to convince others of your brilliance is the master the minute details of some obscure domain of knowledge — and then find an opportunity “by chance” to display your deep knowledge.
Hayek tells a story of Keynes doing something like that, handing Hayek a journal focused on some history of science topic, and then brilliantly displaying his knowledge of the material in the journal.
The display deeply impressed Hayek.
Try it some time. Memorize by heart the details of some obscure corner of history or science. Then find repeated opportunities (with different people) to rehearse the details of the matter. At some point, it the an opportunity comes up to do this by chance, you will come off as this brilliant person who knows all sorts of incredible stuff off the top of his head.
In other words, folks would think you are David Gordon, even when you are not.
Better yet, the more obscure the field, the less there is to master, and the more impressive it will be!
What else should one do with imperfect theories – adopt them and form an intellectual society devoted to their propagation and enhancement?
Either it’s a good theory, or it deserves to be smothered in a wet blanket of doubt.
Improve them maybe? Offer a better alternative?
And there is no good theory, only better.
Assertion piled on assertion.
Pointing out where and how a wrong theory is wrong is the same thing as improving it.
If I pointed out all the ways in which phrenology is wrong, I wouldn’t “improve” it and it wouldn’t stop being a pseudoscience.
In conclusion: keynesianism is scientificistic pseudoscience that should be tossed in the garbage
The opening paragraph reads very similar to things you’d find in audiophile reviews of things (think Monster cables). It’s uncanny.
Perhaps you have done this already and I can not find it, but…
I suggest the Mises blog make a formal challenge regarding Keynes in the manner of challenging economics as a whole. Here it is:
Under what circumstances would the economics profession formally renounce Keynesian economics as a flawed tautology?
1) Drastically reduced government spending results in increases in GDP and hiring within 5 months.
2) etc.
Then mark the results.
I’m sure you get the idea and could do the job much better than me. It is far past time that Keynesian ideas be allowed to die. Inertia in the face of proof marks the power of inertia and invested special interest, as Mancur Olsen so eloquently proved. It also bespeaks a religion.
Whiskey: In which areas would you reduce government spending?
Isn’t it the case that ALL government spending provides funding for some private entity? Whether it’s a subcontractor or an employee, or a subsidy or a grant, every dime spent contributes to the GDP. So when you reduce government spending you reduce the GDP in like amount– just as surely as if you had reduced corporate spending, or individual spending. I’m thinking your formula couldn’t work as designed.
2) You also might want to look up the word “tautology”.
“So when you reduce government spending you reduce the GDP in like amount– just as surely as if you had reduced corporate spending, or individual spending.”
Jeez, Michael, will you please learn some real economics before you continue spewing out the same old fallacious garbage like the above? Reducing government spending would not necessarily reduce GPD. if you let the people who would have funded that spending through their taxes get their money back! The people could spend or invest the money they get back. Learn to consider that which is not seen, for cripes’ sake!
You perpetuate the error by not responding to what I said, Russ. Yes, if there were no taxation, peoples’ spending habits would contribute to the GDP. But in the present situation, government spending does the same thing.
Who’s to say which one is good and which one is bad? Hayek himself said that individuals functioning in an economy have imperfect knowledge. Therefore they would seem to be no wiser than would a government, with its panels of supposed experts. Right?
What is not yet seen is the support you need to provide for your assertion.
michael wrote:
“Yes, if there were no taxation, peoples’ spending habits would contribute to the GDP. But in the present situation, government spending does the same thing.”
First, I never said anything about no taxation. Secondly, no, government spending does not do the same thing. It is spent on different things; things that politicians think will get them votes. If the money were kept by its rightful owners, then it would be spent on what people actually want, or invested in (probably) more economically efficient ways.
“Who’s to say which one is good and which one is bad? Hayek himself said that individuals functioning in an economy have imperfect knowledge. Therefore they would seem to be no wiser than would a government, with its panels of supposed experts. Right?”
Not right. Individuals have better local knowledge than centralized bureaucrats do. They definitely have better knowledge of their own desires, goals and tastes than centralized bureaucrats do.
“What is not yet seen is the support you need to provide for your assertion.”
How much proof is needed for the assertion that if taxation were lowered, people would have more money to spend or invest?!?!?!
http://mises.org/daily/2878
Hahaha, like he will read that XD
And even if he does, his brain is hardwired to redact it in a way as to further confirm his dumb shit
Jeremiah
Keynes was intellectually DISHONEST, but never a lightweight. He won lots of academic prizes at Eton at a variety of subjects. He was 12th wrangler (he got a first class degree, with 11 higher up the pecking order, not sure how many were below him) at Cambridge. He was invited to the Apostles (exclusive philosophical society – very few were). Keynes WAS David Gordon. Best to stick to the merits or lack thereof in Keynes rather than personalities.
David Gordon doesn’t review books in languages in which he’s clearly incompetent. A good man always knows his limitations.
The title referenced a remark made about Keynes in an audio by Rothbard.
Harry – again, so Keynes may have been a bad man, but not an intellectual leightweight. What was Rothbard’s remark?
I didn’t actually say Keynes was a bad man (though i believe he was), I said that a good man knows his limitations. “Lightweight” seems appropriate to describe reviewing an academic work with only schoolboy German. I don’t think David Gordon would attempt any such folly. My comment refers not to Rothbard, but to the blog article.
Smart Products China Co., Ltd established in 2004, is one of the leading manufacturers in the field of novelty gifts industry, specializing in manufacturing and developing high-tech, creative and environmental-friendly products, ranging from Electronic gifts, Plastic gifts, Toys gifts to Silicon gifts.
With more than 5 years’ experience in R&D and exportation, Smart Products China Co., Ltd has already built a strong team, being expert in manufacturing, innovating, designing, sourcing, selling and quality inspecting. Our unique products and professional service can help you make a great different business against your competitors.
We always adhere to the principle “establishing the mutual trust, pursuing the mutual benefits” Our company will be the reliable supplier for your successful business.
Keynes had an agenda that included using his influence to obfuscate anything that potentially could undermine socialism, which he reveled in in his closet. Keynes, the duplicitous, was ego-driven and immoral in many ways. Next to Mises or next to the writings of Mises his true nature would be evident so his only hope was to make whisperings.
I’m interested. Who among contemporary Austrians can read anything but English?
George Reisman learned German so that he could read some of Mises’ unpublished works. I think he went on to translate Epistemological Problems. I’m not sure if Mises made specific negative comments but he generally thought his translators sucked. Maybe Raico did something similar.
Hoppe and Hulsmann can read German as this is their first language. Basically most people learn English because you almost have to, as it the international language. I doubt they would have learned German if they were born in the USA or UK. But I think almost all the leading Austrian school economists can’t read anything but English. Salerno, Block, Klein, Boettke, Horwitz, Leeson, Coyne, Rizzo, White, Ikeda, Carden, Garrison, Herbener, Selgin?
Let he who is not an intellectual leightweight cast the first stone.
“Let he who is not an intellectual leightweight cast the first stone.”
That reminds me of a joke. A prostitute is being stoned, and Jesus comes up to the crowd and says “Ye who has not sinned, cast the first stone.” An old woman steps up, and lobs a rock right into the prostitute’s temple, killing her instantly. Jesus looks at the old woman and says, “Mom, sometimes you really piss me off!”
Anyhoo, I am an intellectual lightweight, relatively speaking, but that’s never stopped me before….
I consider Keynes to be in the same class as Marx; a definite second-rater, intellectually speaking. He was certainly intelligent, but if he was a first-rate mind, why did he come up with so much that was so wrong?
Division of labour: economists don’t have to speak foreign languages, that’s what translators are for. Keynes should have recognized his weakness, but obviously was blinded by hubris.
None of the above are reviewing books in other languages and pretending that they are qualified to do so!
I read French, Italian, and Spanish, for what it’s worth.
Comments on this entry are closed.