Perhaps Niall Ferguson Had A Point About Keynes
"The world which Keynes built dominates academic economics. It is a world in which the vast majority of our business economists and analysts have been trained, and has been the basis of monetary policy during most of the Fed’s history. But as for the large large swaths of the world which do not believe in atheism and the ideals of the higher sodomy, don’t we have the right to think out loud and express concern about the possibility that the world built by Keynes is a world built on one man’s idiosyncratic personal religious and sexual views, which most of us do not share."
Did Keynes have a problem with perpetual gov't borrowing? Certainly his intellectual progeny doesn't. Are they distorting his views?
If he truly is the fountainhead of that mess, then...
"If someone says "I'm not a racist because I think a lot of racist ideas and theories are wrong," trying to call them a raaaaacist after that would only make you look foolish. "
Again, why do racists need a valid reason to be racist any more than a Marxist needs a valid reason to be Marxist?
"Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren," by John Maynard Keynes:
http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/...
I think this pretty much debunks the baseless claim that Keynes was only a short-term thinker.
You didn't answer my question. I didn't ask IF they had a reason, or claimed a reason... I asked why do they NEED a valid reason? Anymore than idiot Marxists need a reason for their bigotries and prejudices?
Yeah, it doesn't matter how a raaaacist may try to defend himself, doesn't matter how valid his arguments are or the double-standard presented by the accuser... the mere accusation makes him a racist.
A white man says the 'n-word', and a lifetime of actions belying the subsequent accusations of raaacism suddenly mean nothing.
EVERYBODY is prejudiced and bigoted. EVERYBODY . Sometimes those bigotries and prejudices are along racial lines. Sometimes along sexual lines, or national lines, or 'class' lines, or along philosophical lines, or sometimes even completely random (being based on emotional reaction).
People always have their reasons.
Separately, I agree he is a bad guy, in economics and person. If the point is to assert he was like the "actors" and real actors in politics today, seeking a fame by inciting the foolish masses by connecting inherent human behaviors (e.g. inclination to give something to someone that gave something to you) to economic nonsense, we may all be in agreement. Homosexuality and atheism are in evidence, but not the root cause.
Marxists don't need a valid reason to be Marxist...
Seems to me just a feature length ad hominem attack.
Just as racists always have a perfectly valid reason to be racist, Perhaps ad hominem attackers find perfectly valid reasons to attack the man.
Meaning no offence to those present.
It's the same point made in the two follow-up articles that are at the bottom, the argument being that at the time he formed his economic theories, Keynes' ideological and sexual views played a very heavy part in the formation of his economic theories.
This is noise and obfuscation. Atheism and homosexuality have nothing to do with logical argument in economics.
If the point is that his private life affected his thought process, of course. If the point is that his specific private life makes his economic theories consequently bad, it is nonsense.
I do not attribute pedophilia to sexuality. I attribute it to violence. A form of stealing, in that the interactions are not fully consensual. It is a cynical and dare I say sociopathetic way of dealing in the world that can be brought to discrediting the theories after they already have been debunked with reason. Sometimes it is very important to delve into why someone with knowledge would purposely promote anti-reason in their theories. Rand did. This was not a "grasping at straws" argument as much as a serious inquiry into the validity of Ferguson's aside. Relevant
If you look at it from a logical standpoint, any assertion put forth is going to affect any other conclusion relying on that assertion. In the realms of economics where you may have dozens of assertions working in tandem to create a theory, having even one that is logically invalid or suspect calls into question the whole working theory. This is precisely the argument made in this piece.
Given the storied failures of Keynes' theories as we have seen in their practical applications via government policy, I think it is also fair to point out the a conclusion is rarely flawed unless an underlying assertion is flawed.
Load more comments...