Talk:Keynesian economics

a request for more detail

Can someone put this in layman's terms please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.235.46.2 (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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?

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)

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.

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)

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)

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?

                     (Muhammad Farooq Usman)Italic text

Reply: Keynesian economics is not exactly so much a killing of Laissez-Faire (known as Classical Economics), but it introduced the opposing side of the economic ideologies. In reality the economy performs in the middle, where government interference does have its consequences in terms of the inverse relationship between inflation and unemployment. Both Keynesian and Classical economics are essentially simplifications of the system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.84.168 (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

If too much money entered the financial sector, funds managers would be content speculating on riskier investments or assets, creating massive instabilities at a macro level. Empirically, every historical growth of the financial sector has resulted in such risky practices, instabilities, and collapses. Your theory rests on too many a priori assumptions.

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)

TECHNOCRATS

just wondering why everyone seems to associate "keynesians" with "technocrats" i meaan are they like a god or somehting?

---

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

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)

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)

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)

Getgo

I have a huge problem with the first sentence of the lede:

Keynesian economics (pronounced /ˈkeɪnziən/, also Keynesianism and Keynesian Theory, is an economic theory based on the ideas of twentieth-century British economist John Maynard Keynes.

There are numerous interpretations and there is endless argument about “what Keynes really meant”. As such, the term “Keynesian economics” refers to a cluster of economic theories based upon various interpretations of the work of John Maynard Keynes, rather than being an economic theory. —SlamDiego_←T 23:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. This has been the only correct contribution on this talk page. Any economist can confirm that Keynesian economisc/Keynesianism is:

• in economics: nothing but a collective designation for theories that claim to be based on Keynes (otherwise they have no systematic string of ideas in common, because Keynes died before he was able to specify major details of his theories and the written texts are very disputed and allow hundreds of interpretations)
• informally or in politics (here cited from N. Gregory Mankiw from the book Modern Macroeconomics, 2005):
  • the belief that the business cycle represents some sort of market imperfection, or
  • the belief in fine-tuning the economy so that the government controls every wiggle of ups and downs
  • the belief that the business cycle is a sign of market perfection
  • ....

So: there is the theory of Keynes himself, there is the theory of the Neoclassical synthesis, the Neokeynesians, Postkeynesians, New Keynesians etc., but a theory (one theory) that could be called Keynesian Economics simply does not exist and has never existed. Keynesianism only exists as an informal designation for some of the above mentioned (or similar) believes, the above list of believes could be extended endlessly. This article is a nice example of pages covered by text being inherently wrong. But I admit that the myth that there is an economic theory that could be called Keynesianism is very popular among non-economists. The following language version of the wikipedia is the only one I have found to provide a correct article on Keynesianims - a disambiguation page: [1] Econ666 (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Since when are there completely unified schools of thought in any field of research? Any field of research where a perfect consensus has not yet been reached will have many points of view. Lecturers and writers and historians will label people or papers, saying "that's a Keynesian viewpoint" or "that's an Austrian viewpoint" or "that's a Darwinian viewpoint" or "that's a version of string theory". But there is debate within Keynesian economics, and within Austrian economics, and within Darwinian biology, and within string theory. What should we do: give every researcher's point of view a different name? Even that wouldn't work, since sometimes individual researchers change their minds or work within multiple schools of thought.

The useful way of studying the history of thought, in any field, is to summarize points of view according to broad similarities. Otherwise readers and students and researchers and certainly the general public just get lost in a marsh of endless debate. There is a coherent pattern of ideas in Keynesian economics, and in my personal opinion it is neither more nor less coherent than the pattern of ideas in neoclassical economics, or Darwinian biology, for example (I know less about Austrian economics and string theory, so I can't judge how coherent those points of view are).

Therefore I would strongly oppose turning Keynesian economics into a disambiguation page. Of course I would support improving it (it's basically a mess), and I support writing articles on some more specific schools within Keynesianism, such as New Keynesian economics. But just because schools have subschools does not mean the classification is unhelpful. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Point well taken – I’ve elaborated some on different schools of thought in Keynesian economics#Postwar Keynesianism and fronted in the lede that interpretation is contentious; it could certainly bear elaboration (I’ve mostly said: “Some people put a neoclassical interpretation, some reject that”.).

Agreed that it should not be a disambiguation page – the term “Keynesian economics” is both widely used and a useful concept with broadly agreed on components, but with much debate on interpretation.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Ricons..., you are definitly wrong on this. You are wrong in that you are simply assuming that because people use the term Keynesian, it somehow first "must" be a school and second the term somehow "must" have a precise meaning. Both assumptions are plainly wrong. In addition, Keynesian economics is NOT analogous to any other economic or philosophical school having "subschools" (and here again you simply assume this), because the term Keynesian is very specific in that it simply has no universal meaning. To be more precise, (a) just write down exactly the characteristics of the individual schools known as "Keynesian" - you will find out that they - as a whole, i.e. ALL of them taken together - simply do not have anything substantial in common (and of course certainly do not have more in common than say any other two "officially" unrelated schools); those who find similarities simply have not studied economic thought properly and oversimplify things in this case, (b) take encyclopaedias and dictionaries, you will see that there are maybe 50 DIFFERENT definitions - and there is no standard, no law, which could be used as a reference to decide which one is right or wrong, because the term simply has many meanings - it is as simple as that (c) if you look at the correct list above (by Econ66) the term is largely defined by various believes/one-sentence "views"; again this shows clearly that it is not a school of thought - it is simply a political buzzword or a collective term for various schools having not enough in common (except that they formally declare that they are successors of Keynes, which they usually are not). The belief that government spending is good (as an example) is not a school of thought, but it is frequently known as Keynesianism (whether you or me or other economists like this definition or not), (d) take for example the book Snowdon: Modern Macroeconomics and the interview with Mankiw (certainly the most prominent "Keynesian") - he himself insists there that the term has no clear or single meaning. To sum up, this article is simply misleading, it does not have to be a disambiguation page but it should be nothing more than a commented list of the many differing possible meanings of the term., i.e. basically a more linguistic than economic text. Deliberately choosing one of the meanings and pretending that this is the correct meaning (which the article currently does) is original research and simply "wrong information". IIIabop (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The lemma lets it seem as if Keynesianism were the natural and direct outcome of Keynes' General Theory. That is not at all the whole truth, since in the history of economic theories Keynesianism in its offical American version is stemming from Paul Samuelson, and this one is rather innocent of the reading of the General Theory. See hereto that quote (IV: HOW DID SAMUELSON LEARN KEYNES’S THEORY?):

"Samuelson has indicated that his first knowledge of Keynes’s General Theory was gained from Bryce [C–L, 1996, p. 158]. Moreover, even after reading the General Theory in 1936, Samuelson, perhaps reflecting Bryce’s view of the difficulty of understanding Keynes’s book, found the General Theory analysis “unpalatable” and not comprehensible [C-L, 1996, p. 159]. Samuelson finally indicated that “The way I finally convinced myself was to just stop worrying about it [about understanding Keynes’s analysis] . I asked myself: why do I refuse a paradigm that enables me to understand the Roosevelt upturn from 1933 till 1937? ... I was content to assume that there was enough rigidity in relative prices and wages to make the Keynesian alternative to Walras operative” [C-L, 1996, pp159-160].

Paul Davidson: Keynes' Serious Monetary Theory.

To the question: Was Keynes a Keynesian? see also my: War Keynes ein Keynesianer? and see here also the listed literature. --Meffo (talk) 10:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Politicians mangle economics

...and we need to untangle the mess. On the subject of what constitutes Keynesian economics, a reasonable litmus test is that the material is reasonably in line with what Keynes wrote, especially in the General Theory.

The work is first and foremost highly technical, written for professional economists - addressing certain assumptions in now forgotten economic models; policy recommendations are secondary and brief.

• in regard to the theory, it assumes free enterprise.

• to the extent that it does deal with policy recommendations: In stark contrast to some of the characterizations of Keynes and The General Theory by politicians, pundits, and in print over the decades, the work advocates transforming a greater part of society to embrace the meritocracy and risk taking of private ownership and free markets - as opposed to the now anachronistic mentality that only the rich take part in such activities.

`Debate` and `controversy` are often weasel words in this regard: if a characterization is wrong, then it should be absent from an encyclopedia, or clearly labeled as such, along with the historical notability.

It is bizarre how often I hear and read people advocate the same things Keynes advocated, and yet frame them as anti-Keynesian. Blablablob (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

By "the work" do you mean the article or the work of Keynes? I'm having a hard time following your comments. Are you saying the article assumes free enterprise? Your second bullet is even less clear to me... what exactly is your point? —Memotype::T 03:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hoover raised taxes?

"For example, Keynesians see Herbert Hoover's June 1932 tax increase as making the Depression worse." I thourght he cutted the taxes. That is what there is tolde here: Herbert Hoover. I would like to see some citation of that. --Lindberg47 (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What of individual investment of individual savings

Savings are thought of as potential energy; as energy available to drive an economy rather than actually driving it. Savings are thought of as residing in a bank which lends them out responsibly to create debt on the one hand and wealth on the other. An alternative view of savings might include money invested by individuals to privatise debt and wealth eliminating the middle man. This market consumerism; individuals buying market equity instead of new cars, houses, or consumables doesn't directly affect the price of goods, create demand for production, reduce supply, create jobs or contribute to inflation except as it creates wealth and debt. Rktect (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Keynesianism is a macroeconomic theory; suppositions about individual consumer behavior are microeconomic.

The alternative view of savings that you put forth suggests that investing and saving aren't distinct concepts; Keynesian theory contends that they are. Also how can money invested by individuals "privatize" debt and wealth? By eliminating which middle man? I'm not sure I follow you. Daydream set (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

it should be the other way round —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.27.235.93 (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This article needs an introduction

The leading section of this article is a series of nearly unconnected paragraphs. What the article needs is an introduction that makes the main points. Further details should be moved to other sections. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I’ve provided a summary in this revision – hope it satisfies!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy

I would suggest that anyone editing Keynes related articles read the last chapter of the General Theory if they havn't already; there is much urban myth regarding Keynes attitude toward entrepreneurship and the roll of government - the summary chapter of his most famous work should clear much of that up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablablob (talk • contribs) 05:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, to mangle a quote, he came to praise the free-market economy, not to bury it. LK (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I’ve put a note in the lede saying as much (mixed economy, middle way, criticized from both left and right); the point may bear elaboration in later sections.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism from the left

The "Criticism" section only deals with neoliberal, laissez faire critiques. There is just as much socialist criticism. I am not qualified to write a subsection on this, but I think that someone should. --n-k, 02:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Austrian criticism is misrepresented

The current section can be summarized as this:

• keynesian theory easily leads to oversized government
• keynesian theory easily leads to abuse of power
• keynesian theory is fundamentally flawed

However, this is not the most important criticism by Austrians. Austrians claim that any Keynesian policies inevitably lead to recession, and actually created many. Even if the government is small, even if it uses its power with the best intentions. And it is not some philosophical theoretical point, but rather real.

I tried to add this, but was reverted by Lawrencekhoo as too much.

Krisztián Pintér (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be good if you could, 1) Source any additions 2) condense the section as it is already overweight. LK (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

instead of adding as new information, i tried to reformulate the first argument to this more relevant one, and link to the body of the theory. i wonder if you agree that version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krisztián Pintér (talk • contribs) 20:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Quote from antiquity was misrepresented/misunderstood and does not prove the point

"There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty.

The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself."

— Proverbs 11:24–25

This is an ancient Hebrew poetry/wisdom literature device called a "couplet."

The left-hand side talks of the use of material goods, while the right-hand side talks of spiritual consequences.

So, whomever is *generous* profits their own *soul*.

These verses do *not* promote socialism or government intervention of wealth.

It does not promote forced altruism but tells us that voluntary altruism makes the heart joyful.

This has nothing to do with Keynesian Economics, Communism, Socialism, or Capitalism at all!

I removed it from the main page, since it was totally taken out of context and does not prove your point at all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikehoskins (talk • contribs) 03:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unemployment on average as too high? from Alan Blinder encyclopedia article.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/KeynesianEconomics.html , Alan Blinder, 2002, the following is from the fourth numbered point:

“ . . In fact, Keynesians typically see unemployment as both too high on average and too variable, although they know that rigorous theoretical justification for these positions is hard to come by. Keynesians also feel certain that periods of recession or depression are economic maladies, not, as in real business cycle theory, efficient market responses to unattractive opportunities. . ”

this is a straightforward claim, that Keynesians view unemploymet as typically too high. I'm just wondering if we have included it in our article in a similar straightforward way? 74.124.35.214 (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

And from Blinder's fifth numbered point: " . . Yet many Keynesians still believe that more modest goals for stabilization policy—coarse-tuning, if you will—are not only defensible but sensible. For example, an economist need not have detailed quantitative knowledge of lags to prescribe a dose of expansionary monetary policy when the unemployment rate is very high. . " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.124.35.214 (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The part where we talk about deficit spending is good

"Precursors " . . While a number of the policies Keynes advocated (notably government deficit spending) . . "

"Active fiscal policy

" . . Rather than seeing unbalanced government budgets as wrong, Keynes advocated what has been called countercyclical fiscal policies, that is policies which acted against the tide of the business cycle: deficit spending when a nation's economy suffers from recession or when recovery is long-delayed and unemployment is persistently high . . "

and also including the part with Keynes' famous quote

" . . He argued that governments should solve problems in the short run rather than waiting for market forces to do it in the long run, because "in the long run, we are all dead."[13]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.124.35.214 (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

but we may be losing an opportunity

"priming the pump"

"alphabet-soup programs of the New Deal"

That is, we may have an opportunity to talk about, in very straightforward fashion, some of the better known aspects of Keynesian economics.

at least it seems that way to me. 74.124.35.214 (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)