tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post3273971128581063274..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Milbank on KeynesEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-56730970995054452102010-09-13T06:27:26.029-04:002010-09-13T06:27:26.029-04:00And by the way - compare Keynesians' use of Th...And by the way - compare Keynesians' use of The General Theory to Austrians' use of Human Action - there's quite a discrepancy. We got our start and our general push in the right direction, but that's about it.<br /><br />Probably the oldest thing that is <i>actively</i> used by Keynesians is Hicks's "Mr. Keynes and the Classics" - and I'd even use "actively used" there loosely.<br /><br />You may get a skewed view of Keynesians by being on my blog so much - I'm considerably more interested in history of thought stuff and "Keynes the man" stuff than most Keynesians, so ya - I go to the General Theory a lot.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17192667997950934790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-41341753122209868832010-09-13T06:24:26.235-04:002010-09-13T06:24:26.235-04:00Xenophon -
Again, Yes and no.
Nobody "does e...Xenophon -<br />Again, Yes and no.<br /><br />Nobody "does economics out of" the General Theory - find me a technical article that cites it. You won't. You'll only find it in history of thought papers, just like the Origin of Species. Find me an example if you disagree.<br /><br />You will find it quoted on blogs and stuff like that because it simply communicates the concept, and it's honestly good witty writing which people like a lot too.<br /><br />I was only ever assigned to read it in a history of thought class.<br /><br /><i>Well, mere majority voting isn't science.</i><br /><br />A common refrain of creationists. You sit and think about how you would respond to one of them if they said that to you, and you can bet it's pretty close to what I would say to you on this point.<br /><br />Majority voting isn't science, but peer review is.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17192667997950934790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-44617727474658675562010-09-12T14:33:44.933-04:002010-09-12T14:33:44.933-04:00Well, no one really does biology out of the Origin...Well, no one really does biology out of the Origin of Species ... the book is basically for historians of science these days. Same with the work of Newton and physics. I get the feeling things are quite different with Keynesians. They have their good book.<br /><br />"For many and for the vast majority."<br /><br />Well, mere majority voting isn't science.Xenophonhttp://myob.myob.myob.myob.myob.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-19851267138480926492010-09-12T07:51:44.056-04:002010-09-12T07:51:44.056-04:00Yes and no.
I think the biggest controversy is ov...Yes and no.<br /><br />I think the biggest controversy is over his fiscal policy recommendations, which are entirely based on an empirical finding: the fiscal multiplier.<br /><br />Very few in the economics profession object to his basic approach to economics. Austrians and Marxists are the only ones I can really think of, and both are quite marginal (albeit the former you know I think has some things to offer - they haven't made any argument sufficient to overthrow Keynes).<br /><br />I think Darwin is quite like Keynes - we don't do economics out of the General Theory like we do out of The Origin of Species, but it does offer some formational material that shapes the innovations that have come after it. Keynes didn't send quite the shock-waves in the discipline that Darwin and Newton did, I would agree with that. Because there were comparatively more precedents for what Keynes would say.<br /><br /><i>"For many ..."</i><br /><br />For many and for the vast majority. As much as I engage Austrians on here, that doesn't mean it makes up a substantial position. We can't pretend it's 50/50 because there may be two sides to the question.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17192667997950934790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-12377888258024656852010-09-11T17:22:15.540-04:002010-09-11T17:22:15.540-04:00"Keynes's place in economics is similarly..."Keynes's place in economics is similarly unassailable..."<br /><br />Lots of people of course beg to differ. This is an interesting tactic though ... trying to compare Keynesianism to Darwinism or, rather, the "Darwinian playbook" (of course an actual evolutionary biologist would never use language like that - "Darwinism" is sort of dated after all - it is a bit like calling modern physics "Newtonism"). There isn't anything like near the level of evidence for Keynesianism as there is for evolution. <br /><br />"Although Keynes died more than a half-century ago, his diagnosis of recessions and depressions remains the foundation of modern macroeconomics."<br /><br />For many ...<br /><br />That's a big part of the problem I'd say.Xenophonhttp://myob.myob.myob.myob.myob.comnoreply@blogger.com