<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Keynesian Anti-Economics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2009/11/17/keynesian-anti-economics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2009/11/17/keynesian-anti-economics/</link>
	<description>Economics of organizations, strategy, entrepreneurship, innovation, and more</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 03:46:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Layson</title>
		<link>http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2009/11/17/keynesian-anti-economics/#comment-76539</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bob Layson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:05:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://organizationsandmarkets.com/?p=7457#comment-76539</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Keynes was most certainly not a charlatan as he actually believed in the theoretical revolution he was peddling.  He thought that he had had an Einsteinian insight into the process of collapsing demand and unemployment equilibrium.  He was intelligent, sincere and wrong.

Quite the stupidest remark that could be made about the classical economists, and many have made it, is that they had no explanation for the Great Depression.  Wages, prices, taxes, tariffs and regime uncertainty can explain it all.  Cannan, for one, knew that.  What economists could not produce was a political process sufficient to reduce the reserve price of labour.  W H Hutt is - in his own way - most clear on this.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Keynes was most certainly not a charlatan as he actually believed in the theoretical revolution he was peddling.  He thought that he had had an Einsteinian insight into the process of collapsing demand and unemployment equilibrium.  He was intelligent, sincere and wrong.</p>
<p>Quite the stupidest remark that could be made about the classical economists, and many have made it, is that they had no explanation for the Great Depression.  Wages, prices, taxes, tariffs and regime uncertainty can explain it all.  Cannan, for one, knew that.  What economists could not produce was a political process sufficient to reduce the reserve price of labour.  W H Hutt is &#8211; in his own way &#8211; most clear on this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Klein</title>
		<link>http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2009/11/17/keynesian-anti-economics/#comment-76400</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Peter Klein]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:31:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://organizationsandmarkets.com/?p=7457#comment-76400</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Right, Hayek made that point about Mill&#039;s forth:

&quot;John Stuart Mill’s profound insight that demand for commodities is not demand for labor, which Leslie Stephen could in 1878 still describe as the doctrine whose “complete apprehension is, perhaps, the best test of a sound economist,” remained for Keynes an incomprehensible absurdity&quot; (Collected Works, vol. 9., p. 249).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Right, Hayek made that point about Mill&#8217;s forth:</p>
<p>&#8220;John Stuart Mill’s profound insight that demand for commodities is not demand for labor, which Leslie Stephen could in 1878 still describe as the doctrine whose “complete apprehension is, perhaps, the best test of a sound economist,” remained for Keynes an incomprehensible absurdity&#8221; (Collected Works, vol. 9., p. 249).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: koppl</title>
		<link>http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2009/11/17/keynesian-anti-economics/#comment-76398</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[koppl]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:24:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://organizationsandmarkets.com/?p=7457#comment-76398</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Machlup said Keynes was a good economist, but not a good economic theorist.  (Dick Langlois may have been in the room when he said that.  Dick?)  

Machlup&#039;s remark identifies something important, I think.  Keynes was a serious guy.  He gave us the last best attempt to save induction with his Treastise of [on?] Probability, for example.  He was a real thinker.  I also think we can all get lots of sustenance from Chapter 12.  It is for a reason that Keynes launched a revolution in economics.  But all Keynes&#039;s talents and depth did not necessarily make his economic theory right or even very good.  It does seem fair to say with Machlup that he was not a good economic *theorist*.  

Roger Garrison taught me that Keynes violated &quot;Mill&#039;s fourth,&quot; i.e. the fourth of Mill&#039;s &quot;four fundamental propositions regarding capital.&quot;  The 4th is &quot;Demand for commodities is not demand for labor.&quot;  It seems this was once the benchmark test for whether you were or were not an economist.  By that standard Keynes didn&#039;t make the cut because C &amp; I move together in his system.  Admittedly, he had sophisticated reasons for rejecting Mill&#039;s 4th and Say&#039;s law.  He was not merely clueless.  But in some sense the result was more anti-economics than economics as previously understood.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Machlup said Keynes was a good economist, but not a good economic theorist.  (Dick Langlois may have been in the room when he said that.  Dick?)  </p>
<p>Machlup&#8217;s remark identifies something important, I think.  Keynes was a serious guy.  He gave us the last best attempt to save induction with his Treastise of [on?] Probability, for example.  He was a real thinker.  I also think we can all get lots of sustenance from Chapter 12.  It is for a reason that Keynes launched a revolution in economics.  But all Keynes&#8217;s talents and depth did not necessarily make his economic theory right or even very good.  It does seem fair to say with Machlup that he was not a good economic *theorist*.  </p>
<p>Roger Garrison taught me that Keynes violated &#8220;Mill&#8217;s fourth,&#8221; i.e. the fourth of Mill&#8217;s &#8220;four fundamental propositions regarding capital.&#8221;  The 4th is &#8220;Demand for commodities is not demand for labor.&#8221;  It seems this was once the benchmark test for whether you were or were not an economist.  By that standard Keynes didn&#8217;t make the cut because C &amp; I move together in his system.  Admittedly, he had sophisticated reasons for rejecting Mill&#8217;s 4th and Say&#8217;s law.  He was not merely clueless.  But in some sense the result was more anti-economics than economics as previously understood.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: william</title>
		<link>http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2009/11/17/keynesian-anti-economics/#comment-76312</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[william]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:17:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://organizationsandmarkets.com/?p=7457#comment-76312</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[the claim that Keynes never spent a minute in studying economic theory iwould be equally true as the one that recognized the fact that Keynes spent his life-time in studying (contemporaneous) economic institutions.

thats the reason why Keynes comment on Hicks Value and Capital, a book almost contemporary to the GT, was about &quot;...a book written by an obviously clever man, and at the same time, almost empty of contents&quot;.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>the claim that Keynes never spent a minute in studying economic theory iwould be equally true as the one that recognized the fact that Keynes spent his life-time in studying (contemporaneous) economic institutions.</p>
<p>thats the reason why Keynes comment on Hicks Value and Capital, a book almost contemporary to the GT, was about &#8220;&#8230;a book written by an obviously clever man, and at the same time, almost empty of contents&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

