Here’s a letter that I sent this morning to the Wall Street Journal:
Kudos to Mark Spitznagel for drawing attention to the important but neglected work of the late Ludwig von Mises (“The Man Who Predicted the Depression,” Nov. 7).
But while Mr. Spitznagel is correct that Keynesians ignored Mises’s 1912 book, Theorie des Geldes und der Umlaufsmittel (and its 1934 English-language translation, The Theory of Money and Credit), Keynes himself did not ignore it – and therein lays a revealing tale.
When Mises’s German-language book first appeared in 1912, Keynes reviewed it in the prestigious Economic Journal, dismissing it as being unoriginal. Seems pretty damning, until we learn that Keynes himself, in his 1930 book Treatise on Money, confessed that “in German, I can only clearly understand what I already know – so that new ideas are apt to be veiled from me by the difficulties of the language.”
Keynes’s influential dismissal of Mises’s work was based not on anything as lofty as informed disagreement; it was based instead on incomprehension.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Share
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 67 comments }
← Previous Comments
“And yes, given the sheer misery of depressions, permanent crises, persistent unemployment and mind-numbing levels of impoverishing freedom-choking government intervention that his theories have justified and his acolytes have assiduously promoted, Keynes hate is completely justified.”
In other words, we have a lot of justification for having an axe to grind. And we'll keep grinding it till we are done.
Actually Hayek noticed this also in his extend interview for the UCLA oral history project. If I can recall it is in Rosten tape II. Their, Hayek explains the great mind John Maynard Keynes was, although he neglected much of his discipline, citing the same line Dr. Boudreaux has made. It is interesting to note that continental economist of the day where more exposed to different ideas than the British. We should not neglect the economic history.
Also Hayek states that Keynes knew very little of the classics or 19th century economists. I guess he is a better judge of it given he knew Keynes personally though his time spent at LSE and Cambridge during the war.
It can be confusing because a lot of what he refers to as “classical” are what we would now call “neoclassical”. Why does Hayek suggests he's not familiar with 19th century economists? Does he give an explanation?
You know, you could always read it and find out. The point of the post is not to just declare that Hazlitt performed a line-by-line rebuttal of Keynes, but to then offer the full text in PDF format as the author of the comment has done.
You can reject it offhand saying “Hah, line-by-line, I don't think so!”. You are welcome to not read it because you are afraid it might change your mind or even just because you don't have the time or have better things to do.
But given that the full text is now right in front of you, it seems silly to criticize it offhand without having read it. What if it proves you wrong in your “by-the-cover” judgement of it? What are you afraid of?
Sure – I'm just not sure what telling me that Hazzlitt didn't like Keynes is supposed to do. I may read it – it's much more of a time constraint issue. But it's telling I think.
RE: “What if it proves you wrong in your “by-the-cover” judgement of it?”
I'm not judging it – I haven't read it yet. All I'm saying is that when you read an intro like that you should approach it more skeptically rather than being more convinced. In other words – tarran isn't really strengthening his point he's making it more suspect. I research a lot of what people say on this blog to be able to make an informed response, but I think I'm justified in not reading a whole book to respond to one comment
I would agree, and nobody's expecting you to. Definitely not if responding to one comment is your only purpose. But the book is certainly worth putting on the reading list, if you are truly concerned with learning and judging for yourself what others have to say on the issue and thereby forming a more complete and refined worldview.
In the interview, Hayek explains how very little concerned Keynes was about the history of economic thought and how he disregarded anything written before him. I would encourage you to read the interview for your self: http://www.archive.org/details/nobelprizewinnin... It is the Rosen Tape II interview, pages 114 to 123, especially page 119. The whole discussion with Rosten is amazing.
I'll read it over lunch, thanks. What is your take on it though – where exactly did Keynes come up short?
The real issue with Keynes was his poor language skills. According to Hayek the man could barely read in german. I think back then journals, books and most other materials where not standardized in english. Now a days you read a Swedish journal in english. Also continental Europeans are more prone to learn different languages due to their heterogeneous cultures. If you assume this, then Hayek and most other continental economist where more knowledgeable on the different trends in economics. I think reading the interviews gives you a general sense of what the economics profession was up until the 1930´s and 40´s. This is also under the assumption that Hayek is being quite honest and not misleading.
I have no doubt Hayek was more knowledgable about Continental economics than Keynes was. I hope I didn't come across as claiming that. To a large extent British economics and Continental economics was an entirely different discipline at this time. Hayek seems angry at how dismissive the Cambridge school was, but I don't see why this is necessarily proof that the Cambridge economists were misinformed. Any Austrian blog these days is going to be wholly dismissive of Keynes in the same way.
I read the piece and I'm still not sure what you expect me to get out of it. Hayek essentially just says Keynes didn't know what he was talking about and had no idea about other schools of thought. I never doubted that Hayek said that. I'm wondering if there's a good reason to trust Hayek on that.
I think you and I are saying basically the same thing. The whole point of the interviews is to get a sense of what Dr. Boudreaux is saying. But I can´t say if Hayek is angry or not, as you claim, about how dismissive the Cambridge economist were. I am also not saying they were misinformed, its just what comes across for some economists as Hayek states.
About the Austrian blogs. I tend to think most people are fans in the stands routing for one team, then there are the players (some academics) and finally the coaches (path breaking economists), who are really the architects of the game. Most bloggers take to name calling and disregard people. Keynes no doubt was a brilliant man, as was Hayek. And by reading the interview you get the sense the great admiration Hayek has for Keynes as a person not just an economist.
Finally, I just thought you might be interested on what the man (Hayek) had to say. What you get out of it is your own business. I am more of a fan than a player.
You go out of our way to defend him even when 18 years later he owns up to previous mistakes. You go out of your way to defend Krugman when he starts in on “Conservatives want to kill babies” rhetoric as well.
I've critiqued a lot of what Krugman has said and I've agreed with a lot of what Krugman has said. If you want to spin me as someone that writes blank checks for him you're going to have to do more than just accuse me of it.
Don't forget the hash browns. Essential to a gret brekfast.
Don't forget the hash browns. Essential to a gret brekfast.
Don't forget the hash browns. Essential to a gret brekfast.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.