The following is an elaboration of Jeremiah Dyke’s informative September 4, 2010 posting, “Keynes, The Intellectual Lightweight.”
I am certainly not qualified to assess Keynes’s overall learning and intellectual capabilities. However, his education in and knowledge of economics was rudimentary and insular, hence the collection of errors that comprise his General Theory and earlier Treatise on Money. As Ludwig von Mises observed, the great success of Keynes’s General Theory was due to it providing a pseudo-scientific justification for the policies that virtually all governments of major countries had been pursuing for several years prior to its publication in 1936.
As for what Keynes was like as an individual, Murray Rothbard’s essay “Keynes, the Man” is an illuminating and critical assessment. The following are the opening and concluding paragraphs of Rothbard’s essay:
“John Maynard Keynes, the man—his character, his writings, and his actions throughout life—was composed of three guiding and interacting elements. The first was his overweening egotism, which assured him that he could handle all intellectual problems quickly and accurately and led him to scorn any general principles that might curb his unbridled ego. The second was his strong sense that he was born into, and destined to be a leader of, Great Britain’s ruling elite. Both of these traits led Keynes to deal with people as well as nations from a self-perceived position of power and dominance. The third element was his deep hatred and contempt for the values and virtues of the bourgeoisie, for conventional morality, for savings and thrift, and for the basic institutions of family life.”
“Later economists continued to hew a revisionist line, maintaining absurdly that Keynes was merely a benign pioneer of uncertainty theory (Shackle and Lachmann), or that he was a prophet of the idea that search costs were highly important in the labor market (Clower and Leijonhufvud). None of this is true. That Keynes was a Keynesian—of that much derided Keynesian system provided by Hicks, Hansen, Samuelson, and Modigliani—is the only explanation that makes any sense of Keynesian economics. Yet Keynes was much more than a Keynesian. Above all, he was the extraordinarily pernicious and malignant figure that we have examined in this chapter: a charming but power-driven statist Machiavelli, who embodied some of the most malevolent trends and institutions of the twentieth century.”
Human betterment, civilization’s advancement, and scientific truth and progress are significantly hindered as a result of Keynes’s General Theory and its numerous fallacies continuing to occupy a dominant place in the economics profession and to form the foundation of government “macroeconomic” policy.
{ 15 comments }
Vitriol directed at the man seems unnecessary. Is it not possible that those with whom we disagree are not, in fact, consumed by pure evil?
Blasphemy! *grin*
As for the first of the three points the author raises, I tend to believe that Keynes was indeed a megalomaniac, because of an anecdote told by Hayek long after Keynes was dead. Supposedly, Keynes said he could easily rein in those Keynesians who were going too far with Keynesianism. Six months later, however, he was dead, and could not rein them in. This story leads me to believe that Keynes’ “theories” were not in fact an attempt to determine truth, but an attempt to manipulate peoples’ behavior, as though Keynes were the puppetmaster and everyone else the puppets.
As for the second point, Keynes was the director of the British Eugenics Society for 7 years. Since eugenicists seldon think that they themselves are not superior, Keynes was apparently pretty sure that he was one of the chosen people.
As for hating middle class values, it’s well known that he was a “sensualist”, bisexual, and a member of the elitist/libertinist Bloomsbury Group.
So I think it’s probably safe to say that the charges leveled against Keynes are correct, even though the way Rothbard expressed them might have been a bit spiteful.
Well – Hayek didn’t say he would speak against people going too far with Keynesianism – he said he would speak against people who would abandon Keynesianism and embrace inflationism.
And for the record, Hayek felt Keynes would indeed have stood with him in that situation.
What is the difference between “Keynesianism” and “inflationism”, except a matter of degree?
I’m not sure what you mean. How is Keynesianism the same as inflationism in any degree?
Aren’t Keynesian “pump-priming” and inflationist “stimulus” the same thing, but just to different degrees?
Was Keynes probably kind of a douchebag? Sure. But who cares? From what I’ve read, von Mises could be quite disagreeable himself at times. It doesn’t make von Mises any less right, or Keynes any more wrong, to point out their personality quirks. It just seems kind of unnecessary.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with pointing out the quirks of those who think that they know how we all should live. It helps people see such intellectuals for what they are: control freaks.
Rothbard in his lecture “Keynes the Man: Hero or Villain” (http://mises.org/media/2875) said (I am paraphrasing) that he as never in favor of ad hominem attacks. He said he was in favor of attacking the doctrine first, then attacking the man.
BTW, Steven Kates had some interesting comments on what he saw as Keynes’s duplicity in this lecture; http://mises.org/media/4769
In short, no.
The left wins because they embrace Alinsky tactics. We need to out Alinsky the Alinskyites.
Quite the drama queen, aren’t you?
I’m sorry, do you think Keynes deserves anything less? I do enjoy the “detatched” intellectualism some people try display with a man responsible for some of the stupidest theories and policies ever developed in the realm of economics. He should be happy he was not crucified.
I’m not calling for detachment – I’m calling for honesty.
Call them ad hominem attacks if you like. But if one person is somewhat disagreeable in person and his policies if followed would lead to peace and prosperity, and another person is superficially charming but deep down appears to have a strong inclination toward a love of power combined with ignorance and who writes policy prescriptions in which this egotism and ignorance are the most outstanding features … then I think that their personalities or if you prefer their underlying psychologies should be discussed.
You quote Rothbard:
“None of this is true. That Keynes was a Keynesian—of that much derided Keynesian system provided by Hicks, Hansen, Samuelson, and Modigliani”
Rothbard is wrong. Keynes was not a “neoclassical synthesis Keynesian” like Hicks and Samuelson. In fact, they diluted his work and took a step backwards by re-introducing flawed neoclassical ideas like (1) the view that involuntary unemployment was only due to inflexible wages and prices, (2) the neutral money axiom, (3) the gross substitution axiom and (4) the ergodicity of the future axiom, contrary to Keynes’s General Theory.
If you want to understand the 3 strands of Keynesianism and why Post Keynesianism is the school that more accurately reflects Keynes’ own thinking, see here:
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2010/07/three-varieties-of-keynesianism.html.
Comments on this entry are closed.