Talk:Keynesian economics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles.. |
| B | rated as B-Class on the assessment scale |
| High | rated as High-importance on the importance scale |
Someone needs to go into more detail about the critiques of Keynes, and later developments. Stirling Newberry 23:05, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Dang that is some very good editting jd Stirling Newberry 02:36, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thanks. I like to edit. Jdevine 04:22, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It reads extremely well now, much more polished and much smoother. It seems we probably need a neo-Keynesian page to differentiate between what might be called classical Keynesianism and more recent work. Stirling Newberry 06:11, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You've really been a flurry of activity on this page, and the article shows it in quality. My suggestion is to move the entire section "subsequent developments" to a second article. This one is bumping up against length limits. Stirling Newberry 21:36, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've started the article at Neo-Keynesian Economics, which right now more or less has the bottom section of this article. Have not removed anything from this article yet, but the logical thing to do would be to cut the bottom. I've also removed the "liberalism" link, since it is, currently, heavily libertarian POV. Perhaps when there has been some time to get it to settle, but for right now, especially while there is a "this article is undergoing a major edit" hold on it, I am uncomfortable with linking to it. Stirling Newberry 21:52, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
good idea: move most of the stuff at the end of Keynesian economics entry to a new article. That leaves more space to make the Keynesian page a bit deeper. But isn't it "New Keynesian" rather than "neo-Keynesian"? Mankiw calls it "new Keynesian" and he's the leader of that pack. jim Jdevine 16:34, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I am going to hold off from editing the last part of this entry, so you can slice off the "new Keynesian" parts. I also have some scraps of the previous version that I want to put back in the earlier parts, but they're at work (and I'm at home). Jdevine 17:12, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I dropped this paragraph:>One way to see this is to think in terms of stocks of money. If households cut their consumption, they accumulate money. But the overall stock of money in the economy does not change as a result of their saving. It simply means that there is less in the bank accounts of business and more in the bank accounts of households. And if the overall stock of money (and other assets) is unchanged, it is unclear why interest rates should move in response to changes in saving behaviour.< I'll rewrite it so that it makes more sense to me and then put it back in. Jim 23:45, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
While I have the utmost respect for Keynes and how his ideas shaped history during a serious crisis in international economics, can someone please explain how Keynes distrusted "speculation" while he himself engaged in heavy currency trading and speculation? --L. 14:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Post-Keynesian Economics
Someday, when I get around to it, I'll add a section on post-Keynesian economics. In the interim, I would strongly suggest that such a section be added. See Foundations of International Economics: Post Keynesian Perspectives, for example.
--Imagine&Engage 10:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Keynes and Chaos
You know, those diagrams with the lines remind me very much of those diagrams that generate chaotic atractors. There is an assumption that the market must settle at the intersection point. That is the case for damped systems, but not for free ones.
Would it be worthwhile adding some links from here to the chaos theory related pages?
[edit] External Links
I think that having Hayek's Road to Serfdom as the only external link is disengenuous. Clearly we should have some links to sites about Keynes or Keynesian economics. I'll see about putting some more in when I have time. Also, the link to Hayek's Road to Serfdom, which came out in 1944, needs to be contextualized: until the neoliberal turn in the late 70s, Hayek, Friedman, and that crowd were thought to be extremists and were virtually off the scope of scholarly debate at that time. Just my thoughts... Originalexplorer 19:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Misqotation for Keynesian article:
Misqotation for Keynesian article:
Richard Nixon did not say "We are all Keynesians now." Milton Friedman did. What Nixon said: "I am now a Keynesian."
The story:
In response to the US economic decline of late 1969-1970, which he precipitated by following conservative economist Milton Friedman's advice on tightening the US money supply so to check inflation, but then promptly reversing course when the country fell into a recession, what Nixon actually said, in an interview with Howard K. Smith of ABC (January 4, 1971), was "I am now a Keynesian."
The quote "we are all Keynesians now," was said by the same Milton Friedman, responding to Lyndon B. Johnson's Keynesian tax cut of 1964, which was a triumph even beyond the expectations of the liberal (Keynesian) economists advocating it, as well as to the more laissez-faire Friedman. One may note that Friedman in his earlier career, during the 1940's, was more Keynesian: cf.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman#Political_views
The positive effects of the Johnson tax cut and resulting dynamic economic growth is the feature article in the Dec. 31, 1965 issue of Time Magazine, "We Are All Keynesians Now.": http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,842353,00.html
(Curiously, Friedman, as best as my reviewing could tell, is not mentioned or cited in this Time article, though his quotation is the basis for the article title.)
Source for the above concerning the quotations: William E. Leuchtenburg, A Troubled Feast: American Society since 1945, updated edition (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1983), pp. 137, 225.
p. 137 contains the Friedman quote; p. 225 has the Nixon quote.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Keynesian_economics"
- This is Keynesian propaganda.
- "In one sense, we are all Keynesians now; in another, no one is a Keynesian any longer. We all use the Keynesian language and apparatus, none of us any longer accepts the initial Keynesian conclusions." - Milton Friedman
- http://www.mskousen.com/Books/Articles/exkeynes.html
- 68.70.219.17 17:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, no--this is not Keynesian propaganda (at least not meant to be). The above quote was made by Friedman in 1968 (as the article in the link indicates), clearly when the US economy was on more shaky ground. The original quote of "we are all Keynsian now" was first uttered in 1964 by Friedman, who was clearly more of a conservative at this point, but the context of the quote was clearly due to the success of the 1964 tax cut. The idea that he was misquoted in 1964 strikes me more as Friedman's own propaganda, as he was then serving as an economic advisor to Barry Goldwater, whose own economic platform was totally lasseiz faire, and who was arguing for the total dismantling of the New Deal--the very idea of not being a Keynesian AT ALL, and clearly under the influence of Friedman's monetarism, where for the first time sense the Depression that such ideas were being given some credence (though it wouldn't be until the Reagan era that they gained ground and practical implementation).
And speaking of propaganda is this why you (I assume) deleted entirely this section on Nixon and Friedman on the actual Wikipedia page for "Keysenian Economics?" Why not just keep it--and add your own comments to them. After all, I cited my source for my quotations to show good faith, nor were my quotations in error, as I double-checked my source for them before submitting the article. And it would let readers more readily decide for themselves.
Other web-reading:
Cf. http://nobelprize.org/economics/laureates/1976/friedman-autobio.html Cf. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/the_pragmatist_and_the_utopian?pg=full Cf. http://eh.net/bookreviews/library/0305.shtml
- I removed it because the factuality of it is credibly disputed and discussion of whether Friedman said this or that has no place in this article.
- The lone Nixon quote does not belong here either. Nixon is not an authority on economics. The personal viewpoint of any particular President of the United States on Keynesianism has no place in an article on Kenesian Economics. If you can somehow integrate it into the rest of the article as a side note in a way that isn't forced I have no problem with it, but having a separate point just to say that Nixon once announced he was a Keynesian is ridiculous. It belongs in Wikiquote, or maybe in an article about Nixon. Not here.
[edit] pronunciation
"Keynesian economics (pronounced KAYNzian)"... That pronunciation guide is almost completely useless; someone care to put it in IPA? Is the correct pronunciation ['kejnziən] or ['kajnziən], or neither? My economics teacher pronounces it ['kinziən]. Mscnln 03:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
According to Economics Explained by James Heilbroner and Lester Thurow, "Keynes" is pronounced "Canes." --Mr. Billion 21:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
There's links to pro-Hayekian sites. Are there any good pro-Keynesian sites we can link to?
82.32.21.160 15:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Confusing sentence
In the Historical Background section, there is this sentence: "With the global drop in production, critics of the gold standard, market self-correction, and production-driven paradigms of economics moved to the fore."
I don't understand. Was it market self-correction or critics of market self-correction that moved to the fore? What does moving to the fore mean? Maybe someone who understands it could rewrite it. Sarah crane 14:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
---
And another: In the Active Fiscal Policy section, it says "But to many the true success of Keynesian policy can be seen at the onset of World War II, which provided a kick to the world economy, removed uncertainty, and forced the rebuilding of destroyed capital." Okay, I can see how WWII forced the rebuilding of destroyed capital, but how did it provide a "kick" to the world economy? It used up huge amounts of Europe's capital in destroying itself. Afterwards Europe ceased being a world power, and European countries had to give up all their overseas territories. When England spent tons of pounds to make bombs that blew up German bridges (and the bombs themselves), or vice versa, I can't see how that helped either England's or Germany's economy. And "removed uncertainty"? WWII had to be the most uncertain period in modern European history! Could someone either remove that sentence or explain it? Sarah crane 15:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The end of laissez-faire?
I am no expert on economics, but the claim that Keynesian economics marked THE END of laissez-faire economics seems overly definitive. Is that really true? I had thought that there is no one true economic theory - each theory involves its own set of assumptions and models only particular aspects of an economy. If so, then how can one theory completely supplant another? And what does it mean for an economic theory to "end." Unlike scientific theories which can be disproved upon experimentation, how can you really say that "laissez-faire" economics was ended?
Did you mean that the emergence of Keynesian economics marked the falling out of favor of "laissez-faire" policy?
[edit] Prononuciation of "Keynes"
How to pronounce "Keynes"? Here's a .wav file: http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/k/k0046600.html Can someone edit it nicely into the page? I seem to have difficulties with it. (Anonymous 21th June 2006 at 6:10 AM)
[edit] class paper
reads far too much like a class paper than an encyclopedia article. author draws too many of his own conclusions, uses lofty language inappropriate for a reference work, e.g.: Into this tumult stepped Keynes, promising not to institute revolution but to save capitalism. that's really not a hard and factual telling of events, just a lame interpretation like the rest of the article.
- This post reads more like the first draft of a class paper than a constructive criticism. Oooh.--Blingice 03:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Escessive Savings
In theory, savings in excess of investment would push toward a current account surplus. Excess funds would be used by the financial sector to reduce foreign debt or to increase their overseas holdings (depending on the difference in interest rates). Instead of promoting recession, excess savings would cause a devaluation in the currency (extra supply created by selling currency on the forex market) which would promote exports and reduce imports (boosting domestic producers, in theory). Secondly, savings in excess of investment would tend to reduce interest rates (at least somewhat) and boost investment and consumption to return the savings-investment balance (nonetheless this effect would be smaller than the first postulate).
Although the article is largely correct, it misses out these factors which in theory deny that excess savings are recessionary.
[edit] What is the 'Free Institute of Economic Research'?
This unaccredited institute has been putting articles on subjects like Welfare Economics, European Union, and related. I have tried to find about them online, to no avail. It is a breach of NPOV to use wikipedia for self-promotion and advance of private agendas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.58.194.209 (talk • contribs)
[edit] TECHNOCRATS
just wondering why everyone seems to associate "keynesians" with "technocrats" i meaan are they like a god or somehting?
[edit] spending and investment
"If the government increases its spending, then the citizens are encouraged to spend more because more money is in circulation. People will start to invest more, and the economy will climb back up to normal."
that is not even a crude simplification ... it's somewhat wrong
private spending = consumption
private saving = investemt
[edit] Economics articles
From a little more than a brief glance at its peers, this page presents itself as a quality written article on economics Thanks to the contributors for their work. --Kenneth M Burke 03:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What's missing here?
"In his political views, was very critical of rentiers and speculators, from a somewhat Fabian perspective."
I'm just scanning this article briefly while at work, and know little on the subject. Someone please complete the sentence. Should it begin with the name "Keynes?"
- That sentence has been repeatedly cut, pasted, and chopped up by people asserting different things about his (Keynes') political views. Someone who actually knows something should provide a referenced description of his views. --Rinconsoleao 08:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] conclusory esp. on redistribution
This is not an encyclopedia POV article, but too often a polemic from the mainstream/Friedman economics perspective that concludes (as that perspective does) with dismissal on various grounds of Keynesian economics. Particularly so in the sections on redistribution and its effects.Haberstr (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
