Talk:John Maynard Keynes/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Economic thought section is unbalanced

The economic thought section of this article is highly critical of the supposed main tenets of Keynes' philosophy. It is constantly saying that his ideas are contradicted by this or that. I don't think it gives a fair airing to Mr. Keynes' acual views. 71.230.57.94 (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes 57.94 , I completely agree. If no one else steps up, then as soon as I have time im going to re write the article in an effort to elevate it to featured article status, and I’ll try to ensure the economic thought section more accurately reflects Keynes ideas. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised when I encountered this article, since, in general, it was my understanding that, whether or not everyone is *politically* happy with the philosophy, in terms of economic policy, Keynes' ideas are very deeply accepted by economists and by policy makers. I was surprised to find that there was supposed to be such opposition. So I checked with a close friend who is a Director of one of the Federal Reserve banks, who told me that Keynes is widely and generally accepted in the policy community and that no one disputes the basic tenets. The arguments are all about the politics of where money gets pumped into economies: who benefits, which sectors are supported. Furthermore, outside our little United States, I doubt there's even any political grumbling. Therefore, the article presents an inaccurate and misleading picture of how these ideas are treated by our political and academic leaders and may simply reflect the wishful thinking of political bias. NaySay (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If true, and it is true, then the blaim for the present crise should be laid at the feet of Keynes and not the free market economists and the market it self. We should revise the history espcially the death of Keynes and the Keynesian revival. 70.150.94.194 (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Naysay, good to hear that, I agree with what you say. 94.194 - an alternative view would be Keynes can be credited in part with the relatively swift recovery that seems to be on the horizon? FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracy

This statement:

• "Then, in seven short years, under massive Keynesian spending, the U.S. went from the greatest depression it has ever known to the greatest economic boom it has ever known. The success of Keynesian economics was so resounding that almost all capitalist governments around the world adopted its policies."

Is factually inaccurate and mathematically untrue as well. It did not at all help to alieviate the Great Depression. FDR did try this and it did fail. World War 2 ended the depression, not Keynesian policy nor did the New Deal. Hoover did the same thing and he turned a recession into a depression. Go back to the records and you will find that to be the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.223.111 (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I hear a lot of back and forth on this issue, and I agree that it was not "seven short years" from bust to boom and this statement should not stand. None the less, as I understand Keynesian concepts (correct me if I am wrong), war spending also constitutes an influx of capital to the private sector from the public and is, in this regard, a Keynesian intervetion. It is not the fact that we make gunpowder and then burn it that improves the economy but that people are put to work. The US did not bring home any spoils of war; rather the US dished out even more cash in the Marshal Plan - a plan that likely owed a lot to the thinking of Keynse - and thereby "bought" the stability that allowed the US to continue consolidating its power and wealth. Signed Johnfravolda (talk) 07:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi John, yep war spending has a similar effect on the economy to the stimulus spands, in that their both examples of the Government directly boosting demand. According to Minsky there was resistance to Keynesian thinking at decision making level until about 1939, so its not neccessarily fair to say his methods were tried and failed in the 30s. There was fiscal stimuli or pump priming as it was then known, but not on anywhere near the scale that Keynes would have advised. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Bias in page

The introduction strikes me as rather on the biased side; for example, regarding the Great Depression it states that "...in seven short years, under massive Keynesian spending, the U.S. went from the greatest depression it has ever known to the greatest economic boom it has ever known. The success of Keynesian economics was so resounding that almost all capitalist governments around the world adopted its policies."

Well, I'm not sure if seven years can correctly be considered "short," but I know that many economists consider the Keynesian response to the Great Depression less than a "resounding success," and there are many reasons for it's adoption by "almost all" capitalist governments other than it's so-called "resounding success" (it's worth noting that, for government officials, Keynesianism is a self-serving ideology that can be interpreted to justify many policies they wanted to adapt anyway).

At another point, the article says that "...Pigou was far from being a cold hearted advocate of raw laissez faire capitalism..." Implication: anyone who advocates "raw laissez faire capitalism" is "cold hearted."

I also think this article would be more balanced if more time was dedicated to criticisms of Keynes; numerous authors have published extensive critiques of his works, but only two of his critics are referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.101.201 (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi , I’ve re- wrote the lede to try and make it sound a little more balanced. In the 50s and 60s unemployment in western economies was consistently very low – on average over 4 times lower than it was either in the decades prior to WW II or during the last 3 decades where until late 2008 Keynes influence on policy makers had been strongly weakened by Friedman and others who tend towards the neo – classical view. So i dont think an arugment that Keynes policies were popular just beacause they help politicians is strong ( i know that isnt what you were saying).

Youre right that Keynes isnt generally regarded as having a decisive influence in ending the great depression, even by sources generally favourable to him. Sorry for implying advocates of laissez faire capitalism are cold hearted, i dont think all of them are at all and ive re-wrote that sentence.

In general , biographical articles on wiki seem to have a slight bias in favour of the subject. The articles on Hayek and Friedman for example are missing some very strong , well sourced and IMO well deserved criticism. I agree though we could have a bit more criticism, such as Schumpters argument tha Keynes neglected the long term and maybe the common (though falsifiable) slur that he was pro Nazi FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of anti-Semitism

Some scholars and others have accused Keynes of harboring anti-Jewish attitudes, which he expressed in some of his letters and other writings [ https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/pi/article/viewFile/1591/1117 "The Immoral Moral Scientist: John Maynard Keynes" - Nina Paulovicova, Univ. of Alberta ] For instance, an extract from his writings says: "[Jews] have in them deep-rooted instincts that are antagonistic and therefore repulsive to the European, and their presence among us is a living example of the insurmountable difficulties that exist in merging race characteristics, in making cats love dogs ... It is not agreeable to see civilization so under the ugly thumbs of its impure Jews who have all the money and the power and brains. "John Maynard Keynes on 'repulsive', 'impure', 'ugly' Jews" - Damian Thompson, blog, The Telegraph (21 January 2009)

Id suggest the above criticism is best not included in the main article. Its true Keynes was anti semetic in some of his private letters but he was pro jew publicly - which is admitted in the Univ. of Alberta source above, which also argues that

“ The evidence points to Keynes' uncritical reproduction of anti-Semitic cliches rather

than inner deeper resentment of the Jews.... closer examination of John Maynard Keynes' behavioural and psychological portrait would demonstrate the weakness of any attempt to label Keynes by existing concepts of anti- Semitism.

”

I also have doubts that the Kyens quote on them being repulsive is accurate - its sourced from a blog which itself is sourced from another blog! Granted it is true Keynes said a few things privately that were almost as bad.

In practice though Keynes used his influence on government both to secure safe passage to England for his Jewish friends or those he just admired like Wittgenstein, and spoke out strongly against the persecution of Jews in Germany in 1935. He was arguing that Hitler would have to be stopped by force when conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic were favouring appeasement. To be fair its somewhat absurd that the right are criticising Keynes on this ground considering their record over the past few decades. As even this telegraph article admits anti Semitism has been strong in American conservative circles until quite recently, only thanks to determined decades long campaigns from the likes of Pastor Hagge have they became pro Jewish. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Source does not support statement

I noticed the back-and-forth regarding deletion of the statement "Few senior economists in the U.S. agreed with Keynes in the 1930s." The statement is soured to this recent newspaper article ^ a b c d e Liz Hoggard (21 October 2008), Ten things you didn't know about Keynes, Evening Standard, a copy of which can be read by following this link:Hoggard.

Nowhere in the Hoggard article did I find any mention of how the work of Keynes was perceived by senior US economists of the 1930s.

Perhaps the editor who restored this statement sourced it to the wrong article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfravolda (talk • contribs) 18:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I restored the sentence since an Anon IP removed it without explaining why and there was a source attached. If the source does not corroborate the info then remove the info or remove the reference and add a fact tag. I did not review the reference at all when I restored the info. A new name 2008 (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.I will figure out how to do the "fact tag." It seems likely that the sentence, although sweeping and unspecific, reflects reality of the time, since it is unlikely that any new set of ideas would become established within a community of academics without resistance from the old guard. The sentance that follows, "With time, however, his ideas became more widely accepted," is similarly broad but obviously true when one considers the fact that we still talk about Keynes. But also in this case the source is suspect since, although it dates from the correct time period (1940), it is written by a journalist from "the left" and does not necessarily signify that the ideas of Keynes were mainstream. It may be argued that these last two sentences in the paragraph are in fact uninformative in the context of the paragraph.

I changed the sentence slightly to say most of the 1930s. According to biographers like Minsky and Skidelsky, Keynesian thinkng began to gain general acceptance in the US in the closing years of the decade. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

In need of clean up

I removed this section from the article because it`s more political than encyclopedic: maybe someone can clean this up... Blablablob (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

He assumed that (marginal) labour productivity decreases with expanding employment. He combined this position with the marginal productivity theory of wages, implying that real wages decrease with increasing employment. This was shown to be empirically incorrect by the economist Dunlop, and Keynes accepted this. Keynes also suggested in the General Theory that inflation would occur only near "full employment" (in his sense), but it has been observed in many cases that inflation creeps up in states of severe underemployment (Stagflation). The assumption entertained by Keynes that inflation can only occur near full employment is still maintained in modern macroeconomics (→NAIRU). Keynes held that the cause of unemployment is a too high rate of savings, or insufficient investment expenditure. He conjectured that the amount of labour supplied is different when the decrease in real wages is due to a decrease in the money wage, than when it is due to an increase in the price level, assuming money wages stay constant. This conjecture relates to the "actual attitudes of workers" and is "not theoretically fundamental", although the New Keynesian economics emphasises this point.

Id say that section belongs more in one of the articles on Keynesian economics. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

New files

Recently the files below were uploaded and they appear to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think they would be a useful addition, please feel free to include any of them.

• File:Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell; John Maynard Keynes, Baron Keynes; (Giles) Lytton Strachey by Lady Ottoline Morrell (2).jpg
• File:Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell; John Maynard Keynes, Baron Keynes; (Giles) Lytton Strachey by Lady Ottoline Morrell.jpg
• File:Julian Ottoline Vinogradoff (née Morrell); Maynard Keynes, Baron Keynes; Augustine Birrell by Lady Ottoline Morrell.jpg

Dcoetzee 01:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks, but looks like the deletionists got them :-( FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracy

Adam Smith? Isn't that very ironic as an influence? --130.243.148.247 (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

'Scuse me? For an economist? Who do you think A.Smith was: a prime minister? NaySay (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Id guess 148.247's point is that Adam Smith is widely seen as a champion of the free market, while Keynes is seen by some as the most effective advocate of an opposing approach (though he's seen by others as the saviour of capitalism, and hated for it by the far left just as he's loathed by free market fundamentalists). Our article on Smith seems to take this view. I think you're right not to see the Irony though NaySay, Smith like Keynes can be viewed as path finder for the middle way, here's a great article from the [Financial Times] by Amartya Sen FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is this segment titled "Factual inaccuracy"? Johnfravolda (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Milton Friedman, not Nixon coined the phrase "we are all keynesians now" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.140.125.11 (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks,I think you're right though I understand Nixon was much more famous for saying it. I've addressed this in the influence section, might re write the lead accordingly to. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite June 14 2009

Last year I announced on this talk page the intention to re-write this article in preparation for a featured article drive. There were no objections, and while there have been many quality edits made since I started contributing, its probably fair to say to no other single editor has been doing sustained work here. I've therefore gone ahead and unilaterally done the re-write.

One of the big challenges in writing about Keynes is the overwhelming abundance of sources. Literally whole libraries of exegesis have been written about the man and his works. Accordingly one finds oneself thinking more about what to leave out rather than what to include, and no one person can hope to call this in a way that will be satisfactory to all. I've tried to keep as closely as possible to the previous community decisions about the article, though if it were up to me Id have left out a lot of the existing content to make room for facts which seem to me more significant. I have however moved quite a lot of stuff about, but where I've deleted old work its mostly because it was redundant content or as I noticed sentences which had been lifted verbatim from sources.

Use of Quotes

Quotes have been used more liberally than usually seems the case for articles that have aspirations to FA status. Two main reasons for this – Keynes provoked such intense reactions in others and spoke so eloquently himself that selected original words are often the most effective way to communicate key elements of his story. Secondly, since ToasterGate, the community has shown heightened desire to avoid plagiarism – even cases where the source material has been partially paraphrased and attributed to the original source. On the other hand, I've seen no evidence that our prohibition against OR has be loosened, which remains must tighter than the restrictions placed on editors of other encyclopedias like Britanica. Increased used of quotes is one answer to the problem posed to the inhibiting pressure against content creation caused by us having strong prohibitions against both OR and plagiarism. Some might feel that the quotes in the reception section give undue weight to the pro Keynes view -however if one checks best available sources like the compendious John Maynard Keynes – critical responses there are literally scores of equally effusive quotes to choose from, many from noteable commentators of the first rank.

References

I should have no difficulties referencing just about every new clause I've added, however it would invariably be with existing sources so it might not add that much to the article and as the appeal of a Biography is largely human interest I don't want to detract from readability with overly dense references. Of course Im happy for folk to add tags in any areas where they feel a reference is needed.

Globalize Tag

I've removed this tag after making some efforts to increase the coverage of Keynes's international significance. It might be worth saying that during Keynes's lifetime , especially regarding financial matters, there was an Anglo – American hegemony on a scale that might seem scarcely imaginable to those who have grown up in our much more egalitarian and globalised world and who haven't studied history in depth. This was the case both in practical economics and in terms of theoretical work. Skidelksy specifically says in his biography that while the General Theory was reviewed extensively in both journals and popular newspapers , the only reaction from outside the US and America worthy of note came from the Swiss.

I don't have the exact figures, but I remember from my economic history class that the US + UK economy formed something like 75% of the World economy during the 1950's. That said, I don't know if it has any bearing on the geographical spread of economic theory. LK (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2009 (UT)))

Neutrality Tag

Most of the issues raised by the tagger were addressed almost immediately after it was added back in march, but I thought it would be fair to leave it up for a while. The article has much more criticism than comparable articles on other influential and controversial economists like Milton Friedman, with some of the criticisms left un-rebutted. If anything the article seems to be relatively biased against the subject, but I kind of feel Keynes wont mind that too much. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Should the peerage box be on the page?

Given that Keynes was only a Baron (lowest rank in UK peerage), and that he was the only member of his 'line', should there be a peerage navbox on the page? If no one objects, I will remove in a few days. LK (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Influence

Doesn't this section suffer from recentism? Last two years are covered by three or four as much text as the period of "Keynesian Ascendancy". -- Vision Thing -- 14:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll re-balance the influence sections soon. The revival is still likely to be the largest one though, as I think folk are more interested in recent events. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Puff?

Id say the material deleted from the reception section is needed to keep balance and NPOV , unless we were to take out several of the criticism. Granted there's more than one would find for most biographies , both criticism and positive reception, but this reflects the reality that Keynes and hsi works provoked quite literally whole libraries worth of responses. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That was a sock of our resident Austrian troll, the banned user karmaisking. He was carrying out his threat to vandalize mainstream economics pages, if we didn't let him have his way on the Austrian school pages. Policy is that edits made by banned users can be reverted by anyone on sight. Unfortunately, KiK keeps on coming back, even though everything he writes is eventually reverted. Apparently, he finds some sort of mean satisfaction in annoying people here. The best thing to do is probably to follow WP:RBI, Revert, Ignore, Block. best, LK (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks, I've heard that name before! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If you look through some KiK's socks, you'll see that they have a distinctive style, so you can identify KiK by his writing style and by the viewpoint that he pushes. Also, you can use geolocate on anonymous IP edits to see if they originate from Australia, where KiK lives. Drop me a line if you suspect that an editor is a KiK sock, and I'll try to give guidence about whether the writing style fits. Regards LK (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

1904 - 1906

Hi what was his connection with Cambridge in these years, was he doing some postgrad work? ϢereSpielChequers 08:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont think he had a formal connection, it seems to have been quite common for some of the middle /upper class lads to hang out at Cambridge for a few years before embarking on their careers. Several of his fellow apostles stayed on to. He was studying for his trypos near the near the end , and I think he might have tried unsuccessfully for a fellowship. I'll check my biographies when I get home and try to find something more concrete to add and will look into Tilton and Firle to. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, nicely done ϢereSpielChequers 12:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Tilton or Firle

 15th July 2009

This article says he died at Tilton, Firle claims he died there but with his ashes scattered nearby at Tilton. Does anyone have a source that could clarify this? ϢereSpielChequers 11:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the Firle articles been changed so it doesnt specifically say he died there anymore. According to Skidelsky, Keynes and Lydia went for a walk at Firle beacon the day before he died, but he died in his bed in Tilton the following morning. Apparently he wanted his ashes sent in an urn to Kings Colledge, but his brother forgot and they were scattered over the downs near Tilton. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Feyd, that then leaves us in the now unusual situation of having an English placename for which there is not yet an article. I feel a redlink coming on. ϢereSpielChequers 12:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Double checking you was right, Tilton can be counted as part of Firle by some sources. (for keynes it means his farmhouse estate, there is a village of the same name but thats in Leicestershire) I looked on google statelite and it seems to be a couple of miles away, but Firle is the nearest village to the farmhouse. I've edited to make this clearer in the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, nicely done. ϢereSpielChequers 22:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

UK 45-51

Currently the article says "to Clement Attlee who continued to run the British economy on Keynesian lines." Whilst Britain's Socialist postwar government was heavily influenced by the ideas of liberals such as Keynes and also William Beveridge, there was also a pronounced socialist theme to their economics, with the nationalisation of several major industries such as Steel and shipbuilding. Wouldn't it be better to either use an example of a more ideologically liberal regime elsewhere, or to rephrase and qualify this to show that Keynesian economics was adopted by or strongly influenced Socialist, Christian Democrat and even Conservative Governments for a generation after WWII. ϢereSpielChequers 12:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I've changed it slightly. In the General Theory Keynes called for a "somewhat comprehensive socialization of investment" but to the best of my knowledge he didnt get a chance to flesh out what that meant with specific examples. I've think its best to have the main examples from GB and the US as they are generally seen as the two countries that first implemented Keynesian policies. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The Keynesian Resurgence

According to The Economist and Brad DeLong there is a split among economist. DeLong says (and this can be easily verified) that "Nobel Memorial Prize-caliber economists like Arizona State's Edward Prescott, Chicago's Robert Lucas and Eugene Fama, and Harvard's Robert Barro claiming that there are valid theoretical arguments proving that fiscal stimulus simply cannot work". This split is not reflected in 'The Keynesian Resurgence' section which only presents views of the one side. Also, there is no mention of how the large budget deficits currently pursued by the US are raising concerns about the ability of the dollar to maintain its status of the world's reserve currency. -- Vision Thing -- 18:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the great links which ive added to the article. I tried to include more detailed criticism in the main article, but you're right there needed to be some mention of the controversy here as well. I've hinted at the debt issue. A few weeks back there was much talk concerning a second US stimulus package, although after the excellent results we've seen these last few days it may be nothing will come of it. If there's much further debate on the subject Ill try and include it in main article and flesh out concerns over levels of debt. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Robert Barro says that: "when I attempted to estimate directly the multiplier associated with peacetime government purchases, I got a number insignificantly different from zero [...] in terms of fiscal-stimulus proposals, it would be unfortunate if the best Team Obama can offer is an unvarnished version of Keynes's 1936 "General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money." The financial crisis and possible depression do not invalidate everything we have learned about macroeconomics since 1936." [1]

• Edward Prescott - ""Stimulus is not part of the language of economics," says Arizona State University economics professor Edward Prescott. I talked to Prescott just hours before Obama set the presidential pen to the stimulus bill. "There is an old, discarded theory that's been tried and failed spectacularly, which is where that language of stimulus comes from." The stimulus bill, Prescott told me, "is likely to depress the economy." Not long after Obama wowed the nation with his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Edward Prescott traveled to Stockholm to receive a Nobel Prize, shared with his frequent collaborator Finn Kydland, "for contributions to dynamic macroeconomics: the time consistency of economic policy and the driving forces behind business cycles." Which is to say, Prescott is one of his discipline's most influential and authoritative voices on precisely those technical issues behind the stimulus debate." [2]

• Eugene Fama: "Even when there are lots of idle workers, government bailouts and stimulus plans are not likely to add to employment." [3]

• Statement signed by 338 economists (Nobel Laureates included): "Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's "lost decade" in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth." [4]

• Dollar: "The International Monetary Fund said it’s possible to take the “revolutionary” step of creating a new global reserve currency to replace the dollar over time. [...] As much as 70 percent of the world’s currency reserves are held in dollars, according to the IMF, leading to calls for nations to diversify their cashpiles to avoid excessive exposure to the U.S. economy as it quadruples its budget deficit in a bid to counter the worst recession since the Great Depression." [5]

• Also, I'm not sure that all Keynesians support current economic policy. Jeffrey Sachs, a New Keynesian, has stated: "President Barack Obama’s economic team is now calling for an unprecedented stimulus of large budget deficits and zero interest rates to counteract the recession. These policies may work in the short term but they threaten to produce still greater crises within a few years." [6] And this paper concludes that "the government spending multipliers from permanent increases in federal government purchases are much less in new Keynesian models than in old Keynesian models. The differences are even larger when one estimates the impacts of the actual path of government purchases in fiscal packages, such as the one enacted in February 2009 in the United States or similar ones discussed in other countries. The multipliers are less than one as consumption and investment are crowded out. The impact in the first year is very small. And as the government purchases decline in the later years of the simulation, the multipliers turn negative." I don't have time to integrate all this into section right now, but I hope that I'll have more time by the end of the week. -- Vision Thing -- 18:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but switching the opening to refer to academia isn't consistent with what the section is about. Keynes himself was more orientated towards the practical side of economics, which is where the current resurgence chiefly belongs , not to economics as a discipline. In the world of policy making the case for Keynesian stimulus has been universally accepted, its a close to being a one side story which is why we have the FT, speaking in global terms, describing the resurgence as a "stunning reversal of the past several decades". In late 2008 there was a single dissenter, Germany, but in a few months she changed her position, with Merkel accepting the general need for stimulus but saying other countries were better placed to boost their domestic demand, (Germany having a large current account surplus, but also a high public debt to GDP ratio even compared to GB and the US, a shrinking population and the deepest fear of inflation).

For all these reasons and more Im regressing most of the change you made to the resurgence section. Anyway , theres a case that the die hard anti Keynesian economists haven't so much been revived but made irrelevant.

See The Collapse of Monetarism and the Irrelevance of the New Monetary Consensus by James Galbraith. The entire policy making world is now broadly acting in accordance with Keyne's ideas. Once the stimulus plans went live CDS spreads across all sectors narrowed significantly - only yesterday when Bernanke merely mentioned the future need to unwind anti recessionary measures (he didn't even mention any dates) share prices immediately fell sharply (though they rallied towards the end of the day). The market clearly favours Keynesian measures, even if some prominent figures remain staunchly in favour of small government – at least with their words. The past year has seen countries that adopted stimulus plans early enjoying the swiftest exists from the recession (e.g. China) with the least Keynesian nations seemingly set to recover last (Germany and the Euro zone) . So whether we look at policy makers, the markets or events there's precious little support for the dissenters – the world doesn't take them seriously so the article shouldnt give their views excessive weight.

We could add a reference to the 338 economists as this seems to be the strongest point, thanks for providing the link for that. I think its best not to try and integrate anything beyond the two strongest critical points - your deLong link said that the likes of Fama and Barro are making claims but cant back them up with a coherent case. To achieve NPOV their claims would need to be counter balanced with more evidence of the resurgence's dominance which would make the section too big.

If you want to write a full critique of the resurgence, a good place might be the main resurgence article, where there is a both a criticism and an academic section that could both be expanded considerably. Im hoping that you might agree the article isn't unbalanced as the resurgence is chiefly a policy making phenomena, but if not we can leave the neutrality tag up for a bit to see if we get some other views. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If I may interject a view from academia. Although it doesn't look that way from the fights now ongoing between the pro and anti-stimulus camps, academic economists have always held views on macroeconomics that are closer to one another than the views that exist in the public at large. I would say that there has not been that much of a change in academia. There is a little less faith now that markets will self correct, and a little more interest in the theory of liquidity traps, but not what I would call a sea change. What has changed is the viewpoint of government officials and the public at large. Before the crisis, journalists and governments tended to put more faith in 'free market' ideology than academics at large; this has now swung back, and they now have (I think) less faith in markets than academics in general, and are now more willing to try the types of government interventions that have previously been suggested by academics. This is not to say that there are not disagreements in academia. There are, just like there have always been – they have heated up, as questions that we had thought solved (e.g. how to prevent depressions) are now actively discussed again. However, the 'Keynesian resurgence' as such, is largely a change in government polcies, media and the public at large. The fact that academics are still fighting among themselves (as always) doesn't diminish that fact. LK (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think you're spot on there. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If the section is not about academics, why they are prominently mentioned in the section? As for "policy making", did you saw this article from Bloomberg? It talks about split between two most powerful central banks: "The worst crisis in modern financial history is set to culminate in an ideological clash, pitting the Federal Reserve against the European Central Bank in a debate that will shape the global economy for at least the next decade. [...] On the Keynesian side of the equation is the Fed (with an acknowledgment that these are strange days indeed when the U.S. seems more left-leaning than mainland Europe), under a new president who has no qualms about spending public money to either prop up or appropriate private companies, much as John Maynard Keynes might have advocated. On the other is the ECB, sired as it was by a Bundesbank inculcated with memories of German hyperinflation in the 1920s, and much more in tune with Milton Friedman’s warnings that inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." -- Vision Thing -- 12:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The 'Keynesian resurgence' is a term referring to the recent move towards more open acceptance of active government interventionism among politicians, political commentators, journalists, etc. That does not mean that there are no disagreements. The persons involved all started with different positions, and some have moved more than others. It's unlikely that they all end up in the same place. The relevant question is, has there been a general move away from 'free market' rhetoric, and towards more open acceptance of interventionist government policies? And I think the overwhelming evidence there is yes. There has been a general movement in that direction, some more than others, some even digging their heels in and raising howls of protest (which, for NPOV, we should document as part of this article). However, it's indisputable that there has been a Keynesian resurgence. Many sources have noted this, and as far as I know, there has been no notable source that has argued the opposite, i.e. that the financial crisis has caused policy makers to doubt even more the prescriptions of Keynesianism.

Completely agree LK. Vision_Thing, I wasnt the originator for the sentence on academics you tagged, but I guess folk felt those economists may have been influential on decision makers. Ive added your link concerning the Fed & ECB to the article . FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's indisputable that there has been a Keynesian resurgence. However, this article leaves an impression that Keynesians won the battle and that is not the case. -- Vision Thing -- 19:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Rasmunssen poll from June 25th, 30% of American voters say that economic stimulus plan passed by Congress is hurting the U.S. economy, 31% say the plan has helped the economy and 31% now say the plan has had no impact on the economy. Also, 49% of voters worry that the federal government will do too much in response to current economic problems in comparison to 35% who fear the government won’t do enough. That is probably the reason why Obama's administration is backing away from Keynesians who insist on another stimulus. (Btw, I think Keynesians are right in a sense that economy will have another dip down, but another stimulus is not an answer). I think these numbers show that "the public at large" still opposes Keynesian solutions more than it supports them. -- Vision Thing -- 19:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No one in the administration and as far as I know no senior Keynesian economist has been advocating a second stimulus these past few weeks, so little wonder public opinion has been allowed to drift. When we needed support in the months leading up to Feb 09, US public support for government intervention was found to be over 60% in poll after poll, sometimes close to 80%. There's a case for further targeted measures such as more help for the unemployed , but not for another package modelled on stim 1. Granted some "keynesians" are overplaying their hands, but thats more something that could be fleshed out in the main article.

In contrast to the revolution and the subsequent counter revolution led by Friedman, Im not sure the resurgence as a whole is best characterised as a battle? . Im confident that once the secondary sources have had time to achieve some perspective, theyll make the comparison and then we can point it out explicitly in the article. It wasnt after defeat in intellectual contests that Greenspan and other leading advocates admitted their loss of faith in the markets – they choose to do so after witnessing the dramatic events playing out in 2008, especially in September.

When I was lobbying for a Keynesian response last year the arguments from free marketers were weak even before Lehman; after they were almost non existent. The battle money motivated folk were fighting was to try to save as much of their gains as they could, where possible by socialising their losses – no serious person was trying to rescue free market ideology. On the theoretical side where the momentous force of events is felt less keenly, its unsurprising that many economists havent changed their views , even Einstein continued to reject much of QM even once the empirical evidence was overwhelming. I guess in their case a military metaphor might be helpful in placing their efforts in context. They're fighting a war, they've already lost. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

News articles about Keynesian resurgence

Here are some news articles that I found that talk about the Keynesian resurgence. LK (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Financial Times: The undeniable shift to Keynes By Chris Giles in London, Ralph Atkins in Frankfurt and,Krishna Guha in Washington

• Market Dogma Carried Seeds of Its Own Downfall, Martin Wolf Says By Alan Purkiss

• The Party Of Goldwater? What the GOP's hostility to Obama's stimulus plan portends by Michael Hirsh

• NPR: Keynes' Economic Theories Back In Vogue

• NPR: Obama Gives Keynes His First Real-World Test by Adam Davidson and Alex Blumberg

• Milton Friedman is the worst possible taste at present Alex Millmow

• Crisis Resuscitates Keynes, Central Planning

• By Elfren Sicangco Cruz Laissez-faire economics The year 2008 could mark the end of an era when the resurgence of laissez-faire economics became the dominant economic and public policy of governments, especially in the West.

• The Global Economic Crisis and the Resurgence of Keynesian Economics Dr. Wolassa L. Kumo

Some great links there. Lord Skidelsky has a book comming out in September on the resurgence Keynes: the return of the Master I have it pre ordered on Amazon, cant wait! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)