He
writes:
OK, I'm going to say upfront: I'm am a neophyte in understanding Keynes. I only truly started trying to comprehend what he has to say when I had to teach the history of economic thought and macroeconomics a couple of years ago.
And he writes in his own defense:
How dare I teach those courses without already understanding Keynes? Well, having taken similar courses as an undergrad, I understood that my competitors in teaching such courses would tell their students things like, "Inflation is more common than deflation for the same reason refrigerators break down over time: once money is issued, it tends to decay." Yes, a professor at an accredited university once said this in my presence. Thus, I came to understand my stance of "honest and open-minded seeker" was far better than what they were likely to be subjected to if I did not accept these posts
I will probably never agree with Gene politically, and I am sure there will be an array of other philosophical disagreements from now into the future. However, in the years that I've been debating and corresponding with Dr. Callahan, I have noticed that he and I rarely disagree economically. Sure, there are some discrepancies here and there, mostly related to our stances with regard to political philosophy, but overall his economics aren't bat shit crazy like most of his contemporaries. And he is generally honest in that if he doesn't know something, he will say that he doesn't know. Now, if he could just contain himself and not take shots at others (esp. libertarians), then he'd be an alright dude. Though, he's going to AA for that.
ReplyDelete*AA=assholes anonymous
Of course Keynes' ideas hold together logically if you accept his assumptions! Keynes wasn't an idiot. Debates about all things important are about the assumptions, not the consistency of the logic.
ReplyDeleteHayek wrote that Keynes must assume unlimited resources, too. If you accept Keynes' assumptions, then Keynes automatically wins any debate.