OK, I know I was slinging too far. But, it is not Keynes the problem, it is this idea that a return to Keynes is possible. Ultimately this would mean redistribution from the private to the social. I do not think that the present political apparatus, which lacks labour representation, will ever understand the widow's cruise, any sort of socialisation would be short lived, just waiting for the upturn in the cycle to reprivitise. So there is no need to shove Keynes everywhere or bestow upon him supernatural qualities. he is no fetish after all.
________________________________ From: Jim Devine <[email protected]> To: Progressive Economics <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 4:39:24 PM Subject: Re: [Pen-l] FYI: Skidelsky on Keynes It looks to me like he's not talking about abstention but about hoarding. Also Skidelsky's short article is only about the contrast between Keynes and the "classics," not about K's innovations in the entire history of human thought. soula avramidis wrote: > Is there no copyright here or am I mistaken. it seems that the theory of > abstention so common in traditional political economy is attributed to > Keynes. and it seems that the shortcomings of mathematics, which is a neo > platonic art with grave limitations is also attributed to Keynes. It also > appears that even the social motivation of investment is also attributed to > Keynes... > what next? > rocket science -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
