Which brings me to DeLong's next post, in which he argues that Hicks isn't really explaining Keynes - he's channeling Kahn, Wicksell and Fisher. To a certain extent, he's probably right. Hicks was working on Value and Capital while Keynes was working on the General Theory, so you certainly can't argue that he got his economics from Keynes (and to be clear, no one does argue that). But Hicks himself suggested the IS-LM model was an attempt to use his (Hicks's) framework to elucidate Keynes. I had always taken him at his word on that. I first read the General Theory at a time when my recollection of IS-LM type analysis was very rusty, so while reading it I wasn't really thinking in terms of "does this really align with Hicks". Since then, Lawrence Klein has helped me understand how Keynes works together with IS-LM much better and he made a quite convincing case that Hicks (and Modigliani and Hansen) all really were formalizing Keynes. Anyway, DeLong argues a somewhat contrary position and now I feel like I have to revisit the General Theory in more detail and as a slightly older, slightly wiser reader.
Bill C, of Twenty Cent Paradigms, has a colorful anecdote from Keynes.
Finally, I was rereading Keynes's chapter titled Sundry Observations on the Nature of Capital, where he talks about the roundaboutness of production and the capital structure. He provides the standard Garrison-Hayek explanation that as the interest rate lowers, the capital structure becomes lengthened or more "roundabout". I noticed something interesting in Keynes's discussion, though - he not only refered to the structure of capital, but the structure of demand. For example, he wrote:
"Given the optimum amount of roundaboutness, we shall, of course, select the
most efficient roundabout process which we can find up to the required
aggregate. But the optimum amount itself should be such as to provide at
the appropriate dates for that part of consumers' demand which it is to be