Keynes is self contradictory, he's not the most unambiguous of writers, a particularly bad case of the two armed economist.
And as the parent pointed out, there are both anti-Keynesian theories, and there are also many post or neo-Keynesian theories. There's lots of things, and this doesn't concern itself with any of them. Which is fine, you can write what ever you like, I just don't like seeing it on HN.
I don't like seeing on HN because there can not be good discussion from it.
Economics is just complex and interesting enough that geeks easily get into it, have that great light bulb moment of understanding, and immediately start opining about it, long before they've reached a deeper understanding.
It's akin to someone understanding Newtonian physic, being elated about getting it, and getting into internet arguments with people who understand the theory of relativity.
And you can't explain the differences between Newtonian and relativistic physics in a short post And the time required to explain it to random Joe on the internets, is just not worth it.
I think what you mean is that because political economy is closer to dogma than to natural science, rational discussion focused on discovering objective truth is just a waste of time. Economical political decisions are made by men to serve other men, and should be adjusted accordingly not to be incontestable dogma supported by spikes of intellectual masturbation. Eppur si muove!
No, arijo, biohacker42 didn't say anything close to "rational discussion focused on discovering objective truth is just a waste of time". It's just your idea, and a stupid idea to boot. I downvoted both of your comments accordingly.
Disussing dogma is a waste of time and energy. Economic decisions should focus on solving real people problems in pragmatic terms (in an agile way if you wish). Elaborate intellectual theories, though eye-candy, do not stand on firm reality grounding (think of Locke's madman concept - one who makes impeccable and rigorous reasoning based on flawed data and assumptions). That's all I was trying to express in my comment above.
Yes I have, and I enjoyed reading it quite a bit. I've also read Locke, Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, Marx, D'Annunzio, Polanyi, Hayek, Schumpeter, Kalecki, John Kenneth Galbraith, Friedman, Olson, North, a selection of other rational choice folks, developmental state literature, modernization theory literature, Gilpin's IPE, marxist IPE including a great deal of world-system theory (Wallerstein, Arrighi, Braudel), historical institutionalist political economy, constructivist political economy, and a smattering of post-Keynesians.
Just because I think his argument isn't relevant to the current crisis, has flaws, and has negative political implications, doesn't mean I haven't read it or don't think it's a brilliant piece of writing.
Like jpeterson said above, this piece takes a document that's been worked over by economists, political economists, scholars, and practitioners for the last 75 years and presents it in isolation, while nevertheless drawing conclusions from Keynes for the present day, ignoring everything that's come in between.
I think the problem is that you're trying to analyze a work in isolation but then draw from it broad conclusions.
It would be kind of like taking Newton's Principia and using it alone to point out flaws in string theory, without taking into account all the objections and clarifications that have come to Newtonian mechanics in-between.
but isn't that what economists themselves are trying to do all the time - describe the whole of the world with either incomplete or unproven theories or both? at least we can see the results...
