Two quick links back here

- First, from Brad DeLong - he reproduces an old post of mine on Sumner and how "haters gonna hate" (just love picturing Brad DeLong say that)

- Second, David Henderson finds my point on Keynes and uniform movement of industries convincing and links back graciously. So graciously, in fact, that I hate to pick a nit and make a plea for putting more meat on this, but I feel I must. He says that Galbraith probably shouldn't have roped Keynes in, but that it just should have been edited to include the Keynesians that are guilty of this. The thing is, I still have no idea why he thinks any Keynesians think this. It's really a silly idea in the first place and I think deleting the whole thing was the right move. I've confessed that I don't know Robinson or Harrod (and now he adds Hansen and Hicks) as well as Keynes, so the fact that David is still keeping them on the list makes me more interested in crowdsourcing this. Why in the world would you accuse them of this? Anybody know? I'm left proving a negative unless everyone on David's list has a clear alternative claim like Keynes does. But does anyone know of anything to justify David's bearishness on early Keynesians? I anticipate Bob Murphy would share this post of Krugman's, but that hardly makes the cut in my opinion. Clearly everyone that thinks the problem is at all related to aggregate demand or monetary disequilibrium will think both the crisis and the recovery will be broad based - but that's quite clearly not the view that Galbraith is criticizing (we can talk more about that if he or anyone else actually thinks there's a case there). Anything else? What do you think of David's edits vs. mine (and more importantly, why)? If any of the early Keynesians that David lists actually thought this I would have to steeply discount my opinion of them.