tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post5862909303070477870..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: DeLong on Friedman in 2006Evanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-24426240582330321532012-07-31T14:27:32.509-04:002012-07-31T14:27:32.509-04:00:)
On a second reading, it's not quite as dis...:)<br /><br />On a second reading, it's not quite as disagreeable as I had taken it to be. I think there's a very real extent to which Keynes doubted what clever policymakers could do, and he made many references to the fact that goodwill and cleverness would not do - that implementing macro policy would very much be a matter of trial and error and would likely vary considerably between societies. While I can see the appeal of "technocracy", I don't think he was that optimistic.<br /><br />A lot of institutions he had a hand in, like Bretton Woods, were institutional or constitutional orders specifically designed to contain the the failures of clever policymakers with goodwill.<br /><br />He also discusses at length in The End of Laissez Faire exactly what he has in mind when he speaks of the socialization of investment. A lot of what he talks about is a natural socialization in large joint-stock companies. Like Berle and Means, Keynes put great stock in these developments - there are a lot of ties between the separation of ownership and control and the euthanasia of the rentier. Keynes pointed out (I believe here, or perhaps it was somewhere else) that the locus of control over the economy should be somewhere between the individual and the State.<br /><br />Like I said - I like the paragraph better on a second reading. But I do think, if I were to sketch out Keynes's political economy, it would emphasize some different themes.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-62441124670023108522012-07-31T13:58:32.641-04:002012-07-31T13:58:32.641-04:00Why don't you explain the details of the paper...Why don't you explain the details of the paper you have yet to write here? Then you will have written it!bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04548019979157668776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-63622339652681184372012-07-31T11:54:23.107-04:002012-07-31T11:54:23.107-04:00Also, on another note folks, here's an article...Also, on another note folks, here's an article by Sylvie Rivot in Italy's <i>History of Economic Ideas</i>: "Where to draw the line between laissez-faire and planning? Keynes and Friedman on public and semi-public institutions".<br /><br />http://www.libraweb.net/articoli.php?chiave=201106102&rivista=61Blue Aurorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02044362251868221897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-51524422180509397812012-07-31T11:34:05.272-04:002012-07-31T11:34:05.272-04:00Regarding Keynes and technocracy...I think you mig...Regarding Keynes and technocracy...I think you might want to go to Volume XXVII of the CWJMK, which Dr. Michael Emmett Brady cites as support for the notion that J.M. Keynes rejected Neo-Keynesian-style demand management.Blue Aurorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02044362251868221897noreply@blogger.com