Comments on: Keynes on Mises — and on Himself

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:11:00 +0000

Don’t forget the hash browns. Essential to a gret brekfast.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:11:00 +0000

Don’t forget the hash browns. Essential to a gret brekfast.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:31:00 +0000

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.

By: Justin P

Justin P — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:27:00 +0000

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.

By: Pablo Kuri

Pablo Kuri — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:21:00 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:21:00 +0000

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.

By: Pablo Kuri

Pablo Kuri — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:53:00 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:45:00 +0000

I’ll read it over lunch, thanks. What is your take on it though – where exactly did Keynes come up short?

By: Pablo Kuri

Pablo Kuri — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:43:00 +0000

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/nobelprizewinnin00haye It is the Rosen Tape II interview, pages 114 to 123, especially page 119. The whole discussion with Rosten is amazing.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:01:00 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:37:00 +0000

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

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:32:00 +0000

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?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:21:00 +0000

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?

By: Pablo Kuri

Pablo Kuri — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:37:00 +0000

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.

By: Pablo Kuri

Pablo Kuri — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:33:00 +0000

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.

By: SaulOhio

SaulOhio — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:19:00 +0000

“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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:46:00 +0000

OK, well without specific criticisms you’re basically telling me that Austrians don’t find Keynes convincing. You know what? The feeling is largely mutual. I’m not sure what to do with your statement that Hayek and Hazzlitt aren’t convinced – I already knew that. I think you should be a little more suspicious of someone who says they went line by line through someone’s work and found no original idea that was a good idea. That should automatically be setting off flashing lights for you. It’s implausible on it’s face and it should make you wonder about other things that Hazzlitts says.

By: tarran

tarran — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:21:00 +0000

Actually, yes. The first chapter of Hazzlitt’s book is an apology for the length of it, claiming that when he sat down to review the General Theory he had no clue how many fallacies and errors he would turn up.

And yes, he exposes the absolutely shoddy scholarship that went into Keynes’ life work. What’s funny is that a few years earlier, Keynes had published another magnum opus that Hayek fisked and eviscerated in simmilar fashion. Hayek later said that one of his greater mistakes was not giving the General Theory the same trashing in a timely manner: he just thought that Keynes would once again come up with a new craptastic theory and he would be wasting his time arguing with the man.

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:34:00 +0000

Can’t promise I’ll read it, but we’ll see. I’m not sure what this post is supposed to accomplish – telling me that Hazzlitt found him to be wrong in every sense that he was original (I already knew Hazzlitt thought this) is supposed to convince me that Keynes is wrong? Did Keynes’s statement that Mises was unoriginal convince you? Now I’m interested in checking it out just out of curiosity – but come on – “what is original is not true” – he checked through every single sentence and he found NOTHING original of value? And you believe that Hazzlitt was smart enough to uncover this but all the people who do think Keynes contributed something important were too stupid to realize? That should make you a little suspicious, tarran. A statement like that should make you wonder about Hazzlitt. He sounds like he has an axe to grind – particularly because he’s so careful to let you know that he doesn’t.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:29:00 +0000

He wrote a review of the book. I think taking it for what it is would be assuming that he understood it well enough to write a review of the book that would be accepted by one of the most prestigous journals out there. You all seem to go out of your way to attack him – so far out of your way that you’ll dig up a remark he made eighteen years later that I thought was pretty funny to prove that 18 years prior he didn’t understand what he was reading and the editors at the journal were somehow too stupid to realize he didn’t write a decent review of Mises. I’m not trying to say that Keynes was one of the foremost Mises scholars of his day. He absolutely wasn’t. I’m sure he missed nuance. But give me a break – you know Keynes is like catnip to you guys.