Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Keynes Was a Socialist Kook

By Simon Black

In this bubblicious world of trillion dollar deficits, sovereign bailouts, and fiscal stimulus measures of historical proportions, there is one economist whose theories and underlying philosophy underpin the foundation of modern macroeconomics.

His name is John Maynard Keynes, and his most famous work, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936) has become the playbook from which politicians and central bankers are making their trillion dollar decisions.

Just about every politician knows the name Keynes. Most would consider themselves “Keynesian” in that they believe in government spending as a means to maintain economic stability. Few have actually read his book. And yet even fewer realize that Keynes was a major advocate of Soviet-style central planning.

Among the many fascist viewpoints in his General Theory, Keynes argued that:

1) A high rate of interest which encourages saving is bad for society. Consumption and borrowing must be promoted. In fact, high interest rates are to blame for why “the world after several millennia of steady individual saving, is so poor…”

2) Consequently, the government should make money cheap, controlling interest rates with a target level of zero. Further, the government should never deliberately increase rates as inflation will not set in “until unemployment has completely disappeared.”

3) Even if inflation should happen to appear, it’s likely due to the “arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth and incomes…” As such, the better solution to control prices and keep the boom going is to simply impose high income and death taxes in order to make a more economically just society.

4) If the boom starts to fade and low interest rates aren’t doing the job, it is the role of the government to step in and ‘invest’ obscene amounts of money to stimulate growth. Only the government is capable of doing this, as “the duty of ordering the current volume of investment cannot safely be left in private hands.”

5) As Keynes favored “a somewhat comprehensive socialization of investment,” he recognized that such complex decisions of investing other people’s money would be “above the heads of the vast mass of more or less illiterate voters.”

6) Not to worry, though, these key decision makers of the state-run economy will have the right “moral position,” so it’s just a question of making sure that the right people are directing the economy.

7) In the event of a crisis, the answer is simple. A government should simply borrow and spend more. In a 1934 article for Redbook magazine entitled “Can America Spend Its Way into Recovery,” Keynes opened with “Why, obviously!”

8 ) If the crisis doesn’t abate after substantial spending an interest rate cuts, Keynes blames these continued problems on not following his advice closely enough: “[A]uthorities of the world have lacked the courage or conviction at each stage of the decline to apply the available remedies in sufficiently drastic doses.”

I could go on, but I don’t want to spoil the ending where the entire global financial system collapses as a result of following these ridiculous policies.

In terms of economic philosophy, very little separated Keynes from Lenin. Keynes even praised Lenin when he wrote, “Let us not belittle these magnificent experiments or refuse to learn from them… the Five Year Plan in Russia, the Corporative state in Italy…”

And yet, this is the man who is held up by world leaders as the architect for economic bliss. Politicians and central bankers are calling his plays almost verbatim– enormous stimulus packages where volume and quantity are all that matter, quality counts for nothing; interest rates at zero; spending your way out of recession; borrowing your way out of debt…

Read the rest here.



  1. Rather than socialism, Keynes thought he had put the final Bismarkian-conservative nail into the coffin of classical liberalism with his General Theory.

  2. I've always wondered (and perhaps this will be my next research project) if Keynes, in very much the same fashion as Karl Marx, had been financed by some, shall we say, rather deceptive, subversive characters (*cough* Rotschilds *cough*) to create a pseudo-intellectual framework for their evil economic machinations.

  3. Anonymous@5:26 That subversive character that Marx sponged off for years was Frederich Engels (although Bakunin claimed he was financed by Nathan Rothschild, but I don't see why a guy who the ruling class hung off had to mess round with self promoting psuedo revolutionaries.

  4. Certainly he sponged off of Engles, but I understand that he was also funded by the League of the Just which was a front for elite interests. Also, considering that a progressive income tax, a central bank that controls credit, elimination of private property rights, control of schooling, and elimination of the rights of inheritance were all planks of that parasite's Manifesto, these ideals were much more than those of a self-promoting revolutionary. They directly serve the interests of the elite banking class, as our own history in this country has shown and will further prove as we descend further into slavish tyranny.
    As Robison had written in his Proofs of a Conspiracy (1798), these ideas were already the blueprint of the elites as they came from Adam Weishaupt (who was also "allegedly" funded by Mayer Amschel Rothschild) long before they were the vomitous ooze on the pages of Marx's horrible tome.

  5. But I don't get the need to promote the radicals (other than to promote a factional fight) when fabianism proved to be very popular with the 'Petite' aristos. On second thoughts, I can only put it down to infighting between different factions with that elite banking group.