Blogs > Liberty and Power > Keynes the Jokester?

Jan 4, 2009

Keynes the Jokester?




I spent much of my recent vacation reading Henry Hazlitt's chapter-by-chapter demolition of Keynes's The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936), The Failure of the"New Economics" (1959). I didn't expect to read the book cover to cover, but after only a few pages I had to keep going. It is that well-written and interesting. I'm now a few pages from the end.

The more I read the more I thought: Keynes was surely joking. No one in his position could really be that confused, contradictory, and ignorant of economic logic. It had to be a gag on the economics profession, an emperor-with-no-clothes experiment.

Thus I smiled when I got to Hazlitt's statement in chapter XXV,"Did Keynes Recant?" (p. 398):
Keynes was a brilliant man. Much of what he wrote he wrote in tongue-in-cheek, for the pleasure of paradox, to épater le bourgois [shock the middle class], in the spirit of Wilde, Shaw, and the Bloomsbury circle. Perhaps the whole of the General Theory was intended as a huge (400-page) joke, and Keynes was appalled to find disciples who took it all literally.
If it was a joke, Keynes helped inflict much misery and oppression on innocent people just for a laugh. I guess for the elitist Keynes, the well-being of the masses can't be allowed to impede his bold and daring lifestyle. It is for people like him that secularists like me wish there was a place of fire and brimstone.

At any rate, I highly recommend Hazlitt's book. Don Boudreaux says that Richard Dawkins's The Blind Watchmaker proves that any subject, no matter how complex, can be written about clearly and accessibly. I say the same about The Failure of the"New Economics."

Cross-posted at Anything Peaceful and Free Association.


comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Keith Halderman - 1/6/2009

Jane: I too came to libertarianism from the left and I used entertain a lot of silly notions about economics. It was Economics in One Lesson that straightened me out. On the Nolan quiz I would score 100 on the personal liberties but only 60 on economic liberties. After reading the book it was 100 and 100. There is a quote from H.L. Mencken on the back of my copy which says to the effect that the author is rare, an economist who can write and I agree. Besides in my fantasy people do not have the option of not finishing the book.


Jane S. Shaw - 1/6/2009

Keith: I would like to go back to Economics in One Lesson one of these days, but I must tell you that I was a "member of the public" when it was recommended to me about 30 years ago. Although I was sympathetic to capitalism I had a youthful leftist bent. I started the book but rejected it as a "tract." (That was the word I used.) Okay, mea culpa. But I was more open to Hazlitt than many of my colleagues would have been, and it took much more than Hazlitt to make me as libertarian as I am today.


Keith Halderman - 1/5/2009

If you had it in your power to require each member of the public to read only one book I think Economics in One Lesson might be a good choice.


David T. Beito - 1/4/2009

Thanks Sheldon. I'll check it out. If Keynes was playing a joke, he sure has Krugman fooled. Hazlitt was always one of my favorites. His Economics in One Lesson and much less known Time Will Run Back beautifully explain the market economy.