John Maynard Keynes
enrique
the bubble on a whirlpool of speculation."
John Maynard Keynes
Oliver Kamm
a Chomsky groupie. Bear in mind that Ed Herman is supposed to be a Professor
of Finance, yet has never had an article accepted in any peer-reviewed
journal in the field and appears never to have heard of the principal tenets
of financial theory, and that gives you some idea of the chronic ignorance
of the groupies regrading economics and finance.
Well, I know Keynes's work rather well, and I can assure you that this
witless remark never came from him. If you want to find out what he really
said on investment, look at his Collected Writings Vol. 12 pages 1-647, and
the correspondence held at the National Mutual Life Assurance Society (of
which Keynes was Chairman from 1921 to 1938). You'll find he took a highly
optimistic view of equity investment, consistent with the notion that
equities were intrinsically undervalued relative to interest rates. 60 years
on, we can apprecfiate how right he was.
Oliver Kamm
enrique wrote in message <367FCF7B...@mindspring.com>...
mp3a...@hotmail.com
In article <75pdo8$7c5$1...@nclient1-gui.server.virgin.net>,
>
>Well, I know Keynes's work rather well, and I can assure you that this
>witless remark never came from him. If you want to find out what he really
>said on investment, look at his Collected Writings Vol. 12 pages 1-647, and
>the correspondence held at the National Mutual Life Assurance Society (of
>which Keynes was Chairman from 1921 to 1938). You'll find he took a highly
>optimistic view of equity investment, consistent with the notion that
>equities were intrinsically undervalued relative to interest rates. 60 years
>on, we can apprecfiate how right he was.
>
How'd he feel about that stretch between 1929 and 1933? In any event, I
don't see how the statement attributed to Keynes contradicts the Collected
Writings Vol. 12 pages 1-647, etc., etc.
--
MP3 Audio mp3a...@hotmail.com http://members.theglobe.com/mp3audio/
David Friedman
<olive...@virgin.net> wrote:
>Well, I know Keynes's work rather well, and I can assure you that this
>witless remark never came from him.
Hard to be certain, given the difficulty of proving a negative. Wouldn't
it be simpler to simply ask "enrique" to cite his source?
>enrique wrote in message <367FCF7B...@mindspring.com>...
>>"Speculators may do no harm as bubbles on a steady stream of enterprise.
>But the position is serious when enterprise becomes
>> the bubble on a whirlpool of speculation."
>>
>>
>John Maynard Keynes
--
David Friedman
DD...@Best.com
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
Oliver Kamm
read Keynes, has no notion of critical inquiry, or of economic reasoning.
For the equivalent type of "thinking", look at the Creationist web-sites.
Oliver Kamm
David Friedman wrote in message ...
Robert Vienneau
> >>enrique wrote in message <367FCF7B...@mindspring.com>...
> >>>"Speculators may do no harm as bubbles on a steady stream of enterprise.
> >>But the position is serious when enterprise becomes
> >>> the bubble on a whirlpool of speculation."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>John Maynard Keynes
It's from Chapter 12 of _The General Theory of Employment Interest and
Money_, p. 159. The next line is:
"When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of
the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done."
--
Robert Vienneau
r
v
i
e m
n o Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom,
@ c or virtue, are always found...in proportion to
d . the power or wealth of a man [is] a question
r e fit perhaps to be discussed by slaves in the
e p hearing of their masters, but highly unbecoming
a a to reasonable and free men in search of the
m c truth.
s -- Rousseau
Jon Duncan
Anonymous wrote in message <1998122903...@replay.com>...
>
>In article <rvien-28129...@ua1-b19.dreamscape.com>,
>rv...@see.sig.com (Robert Vienneau) wrote:
>
>>> >>enrique wrote in message <367FCF7B...@mindspring.com>...
>>> >>>"Speculators may do no harm as bubbles on a steady stream of
enterprise.
>>> >>But the position is serious when enterprise becomes
>>> >>> the bubble on a whirlpool of speculation."
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>John Maynard Keynes
>>
>>It's from Chapter 12 of _The General Theory of Employment Interest and
>>Money_, p. 159. The next line is:
>>
>> "When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of
>> the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done."
>
>
>Is he incompetent in economics or a liar? Or perhaps both? Has he
>demonstrated an "abysmally low intellectual level"? Does his statement
>below qualify as a "howler"?
>
All of the above certainly may be true. What is certain is that what Kamm
has written is a Lie (TM).
Jon
"Lie" is a trademark of Starr-Donald. Used without permission.
Anonymous
>> >>enrique wrote in message <367FCF7B...@mindspring.com>...
>> >>>"Speculators may do no harm as bubbles on a steady stream of enterprise.
>> >>But the position is serious when enterprise becomes
>> >>> the bubble on a whirlpool of speculation."
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>John Maynard Keynes
>
>It's from Chapter 12 of _The General Theory of Employment Interest and
>Money_, p. 159. The next line is:
>
> "When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of
> the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done."
If this citation is accurate, then Mr. Kamm has some explaining to do.
Is he incompetent in economics or a liar? Or perhaps both? Has he
demonstrated an "abysmally low intellectual level"? Does his statement
below qualify as a "howler"?
In article <75pdo8$7c5$1...@nclient1-gui.server.virgin.net>,
olive...@virgin.net (Oliver Kamm) wrote:
>This is the sort of abysmally low intellectual level that you'd expect
>from a Chomsky groupie. Bear in mind that Ed Herman is supposed to be a
>Professor of Finance, yet has never had an article accepted in any
>peer-reviewed journal in the field and appears never to have heard of
>the principal tenets of financial theory, and that gives you some idea
>of the chronic ignorance of the groupies regrading economics and
>finance.
>
>Well, I know Keynes's work rather well, and I can assure you that this
>witless remark never came from him. If you want to find out what he
>really said on investment, look at his Collected Writings Vol. 12 pages
>1-647, and the correspondence held at the National Mutual Life Assurance
>Society (of which Keynes was Chairman from 1921 to 1938). You'll find he
>took a highly optimistic view of equity investment, consistent with the
>notion that equities were intrinsically undervalued relative to interest
>rates. 60 years on, we can apprecfiate how right he was.
>
>Oliver Kamm
Oliver Kamm
indicates you're an economic ignoramus. I very carefully said that the
witless remark quoted didn't come from Keynes - and your knowledge of the
literature is so pitiable that you're unaware that indeed it doesn't, it
comes from Keynes's collaborator Roy Harrod (who was also responsible for
the only diagram in the General Theory, showing saving as a function of
interest as well as income).
If you seriously want to educate yourself about Keynes - and you've got a
long way to go: indeed, a long way till you're at the starting post - try J.
Runde's "Keynesian Uncertainty and the Instability of Beliefs", Review of
Political Economy, vol3 1991.
Why is it that Chomsky groupies are so spectacularly ill-informed? Must be
because the master himself is, I guess, and they're too ill-educated to
realise it.
Oliver Kamm
Anonymous wrote in message
Oliver Kamm
extended beyond Jew-baiting to Keynesian theory. Given that that's so, we
have SO much to talk about!
So, to get the ball rolling, I'd appreciate it if you'd vouchsafe to this
group your opinion of the influence of Keynes's rate-of-interest theory in
his rejection of Say's law. In particular, how does the consumption
function/multiplier mechanism explain the process of income adjustment?
Go ahead, punk; make my day.
Oliver Kamm
Jon Duncan wrote in message <769k3q$gr8
Anonymous
In article <76bctq$6fk$1...@nclient3-gui.server.virgin.net>,
olive...@virgin.net (Oliver Kamm) wrote:
>I'm not surprised you wanted to keep this message anonymous, given that it
>indicates you're an economic ignoramus. I very carefully said that the
>witless remark quoted didn't come from Keynes - and your knowledge of the
>literature is so pitiable that you're unaware that indeed it doesn't, it
>comes from Keynes's collaborator Roy Harrod (who was also responsible for
>the only diagram in the General Theory, showing saving as a function of
>interest as well as income).
Does Harrod's name appear as an author on the chapter in question? It
doesn't appear on the title page of the book.
It's common in the natural sciences for papers to have several authors,
with the lab director as the lead author. If it turns out that the
junior authors cooked the data, the lead author is still responsible for
what has been published under his or her name.
The quotation comes from The General Theory of Employment, Interest and
Money. The author of that book is Keynes. Thus, it is perfectly
appropriate to cite Keynes as the source of the quotation, unless
particular chapters have different authorship credits.
If Harrod was the ghost author of major portions of the General Theory,
then Keynes was dishonest in claiming sole authorship. Publishers should
append Harrod's name to the byline. Until they do so, every word in the
book will be attributed to Keynes himself, except by a few economists
who have nothing better to do with their lives than to pretend that
obscure rumors are in fact the essential doctrines of their profession.