Talk:John Maynard Keynes/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Neutrality of Early Life and Education

It seems like the last paragraph in Early Life and Education is written from a point of view that tries to discredits Keynes. This papragraph, about Keynes's ideas reflecting his rosy upbringing, does have multiple citations, but the fact that it draws attention to a theory that brackets off Keynes's insights before his ideas are even given a chance to stand on their own seems a little unfair. The Futurist Corporation (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, several friendly biographers have made similar points. I dont think it at all discredits him myself. Its not saying his insights are based on his comfortable upbringing, though it could be taken to imply, as has been pointed out by many commentators including several not added, that some of his insights were such that only an optimist would be likely to have them. This isnt to say his insights arent correct. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"In the 1920s" Section

This sentence is too long and hard to read. It's in the section called "In the 1920s". I'm not good at fixing this kind of thing. Sorry.

"The 1920s saw high unemployment in Britain even before the outbreak of the Great Depression — in addition to advocating depreciating the currency as a way to boost jobs by making British exports more affordable, Keynes was from 1924 to start recommending a fiscal response to unemployment by means of government spending on public works." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.230.231 (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, i split the sentence into two. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Niggers

The word "nigger" didn't have any particularly negative connotations in Britain traditionally. It just meant Negro. It was the US expeditionary troops in World War II who brought their extremely racist attitudes with them to the UK and turned "nigger" into a pejorative which it hadn't been prior to that.
Plus the notion that any nigger must of necessity be an African-American nigger is of course just another self-centred American attitude. Varlaam (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree, and we should try to use sources that are actually about the subject. In this case the information was taken from a book about Isaiah Berlin, in it may be from recollections recounted decades after the events occurred. And his letter to Grant was from 1905. TFD (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

1. The word "nigger" did have negative connotations at that time, and was understood to be the language of slave-owners. Note, it had negative connotations, but those negative connotations were themselves uncontroversial. My Oxford dictionary of around 1910 (I can't remember the exact date) lists it directly in relation to the phrase "work like a nigga". In 1926, H. W. Fowler states that applying the word nigger to "others than full or partial negroes" is "felt as an insult by the person described, & betrays in the speaker, if not deliberate insolence, at least a very arrogant inhumanity". Why would applying the word to "others than full or partial negroes" be a problem, if it didn't take over certain connotations, from the slave-owners' usage?

2. The passage in which Isaiah Berlin mentions being shocked by Keynes' language is part of an otherwise very sympathetic description of him. Note that Keynes was talking about "niggers" to his American friends, at American dinner parties, in the 1940s. It is a reliable, secondary source. There is a lot more controversial material in the primary sources - but on wikipedia, secondary sources like this one are preferred. WP:Primary

3. If you have any acquaintance with Keynes' essays and diaries, you will know how often he categorises people and nations in terms of their racial origins, using those origins to explain their behaviour. There are more primary quotes, but we prefer secondary sourcing. As mentioned by another user above, Keynes often writes in this vein: "Jews as an Eastern people who, on account of deep-rooted instincts that are antagonistic and therefore repulsive to the European can no more be assimilated to European civilisation than cats can be made to love dogs." Avaya1 (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Id still agree with TRD. With Keynes there is an abundance of sources from all perspectives specifically about him. Id favour only having reference to his alleged anti Semitism myself, as that’s the only aspect of his alleged racism Ive seen covered in serious sources. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

1. There's no justification for only using biographies directly about Keynes. I think it's better to bring in a range of different sources, rather than relying entirely on e.g. Skidelsky (who is quite polemical). We have an academic paper that quotes that one 1905 letter apropos "charming niggers" and also cites from the Russian essay, so those are the quotes we mention in the paragraph. But if you look over Keynes's letters, it's not the only time he writes about "niggers". The area however hasn't received much attention in the secondary-sources.

2. As for Berlin's biography - it is a reliable (and non-polemical) secondary source, and Berlin was a particularly sympathetic British observer, who was surprised by Keynes' usage. Note that we mention Berlin in the same paragraph to moderate the allegations. Avaya1 (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Popular resistance in the U.S.A. 2009 - present

This section does not give sufficient support for its claim that ARRA led to the Tea Party's formation, and it's not even related to Keynes anyway. If this section isn't improved by a proponent, I will remove it. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

vandalism?

The introduction refers to John Sloman, the most influential economist of the 20th century. I never heard of John Sloman the economist. The only John Sloman in Wiki is a musician born 1957 who performed with Uriah Heep and other artists. Should this reference be deleted? Dumb question I suppose. Jrgilb (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. John Sloman is an excellent teacher and writer of university textbooks on Economics, but he's not that famous. His name was just included to show he is one of the people who consider Keynes to be the 20th centuries most influential economists, but I guess it might be clearer to simplify the sentence. (Some sources from the 1990s make the case that Friedman could be considered equally influential, but following the resurgence don’t think any serious person would claim that anymore) FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Choice of pic for the resurgence section

Brown probably did more than anyone else to build concensus for the global fiscal stimulus, but theres a number of advantages to the Manmohan Singh pic. Firstly the resurgence, just like Keynes's influence , was a global phenomena, and this is the only pic not from Europe or the US. Singh is an economist unlike Brown. India continued advocating for ongoing global stimulus even in mid 2010 when Britain was arguing for the opposite. Having a pic of an Indian also resonates with the fact that Keynes had wanted an Indian as the first head of the IMF. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Keynes vs Keynesian Economics

I wonder whether much of the material under legacy and reception, particularly about events that took place after Keynes' death in 1946, would better belong at Keynesian economics? This is because the material is more about the economics than about the man.

These sections could then be replaced with a shorter 'legacy' section, with a link to Keynesian economics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thom2002 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Robert Reisch an economist, let alone a PROMINENT one?

Prominent economists generally hold doctorates in economics, and if academic are employed in economics departments. Reisch has a law degree from Yale. He has said over and over again he is not an economist. His academic career is in public policy and government not economics. To argue that he would somehow be accepted by economists as a prominent economist is quite a stretch, and not something Reisch himself would agree with.69.55.44.65 (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I changed "economists" > "economic commentators". You're always welcome to make minor improvements direct to the article if you prefer. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Europe being the exception in implementing Keynesian economics?

"More recently, the failure of global economic stimulus to achieve hoped-for effects resulted in a move away from Keynesian counter-cyclical efforts toward economic austerity; the exception is Europe in 2011, as European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has called for stronger role of fiscal policy."

I'm shocked by the above assertion in the introductory section of the article. For one thing, if there has been one ripe anti-Keynesian ground for economic policies, it has been Europe. Europe's main prescription, from Germany to Britain to Greece to Ireland, has been austerity and nothing else. How is this Keynesian?

Even the US has been more Keynesian in its policies because Republican efforts in cutting immediate spending have mostly been blocked in Congress.

Furthermore, the most Keynesian countries happen to be in Asia where very large stimulus packages basically eroded the effects of the financial crisis.

What I'm trying to elaborate here is that the cited assertion is not only inaccurate, it is thoroughly contrary to reality. Therefore, I will remove it until a plausible argument or a better replacement is issued. -- And Rew 16:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Not directly relevant?

Seems that this book -- Wapshott, Nicholas, Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics, W. W. Norton, 2011 -- is directly related as per its very title. Its inclusion in WP:FURTHER is entirely justified. Similarly, the inclusion of Fear the Boom and Bust as a WP:ALSO is appropriate. There is no requirement that a SA be "directly related". Indeed, "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." [Emphasis added.] --S. Rich (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)06:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent revert

This last edits shows a misunderstanding of the 'See also' section.[1] See also links are supposed to be placeholders for links which would eventually make it into the article (See WP:SEEALSO). I think it's clear that a rap video shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article of Keynes. The further reading section is for books that directly treat and expand on the subject. As such, the current further reading section is appropriate. LK (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

LK protests on my talk page that I am promoting the Austrian School and seems critical of these recent edits. 1. The inclusion of both a "References" reading list and a "Further reading" list does not make sense. The "Notes" section covers the references actually used for the article and it is unclear which of the References books were used. The two sections should be combined. 2. Some of these See alsos are ambiguous Animal spirits, not generally known Post-war consensus, or are of relevance not immediately apparent Stockholm school. As these factors apply, "Editors should provide a brief annotation ..." The annotations I added were taken from the ledes of the particular SA articles, so why delete them? (Better to have shortened them.) 3. Fear the Boom and Bust is included in articles related to the AS, so it would be WP:UNDUE not to include it here. (While it is "only peripherally related to the one in question" WP:ALSO says "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible".)--S. Rich (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

SRich, you're right the References section needs attention. It will take many hours to fix up properly, but hopefully I'll get round to it eventually if no one else does. On point 3, much as I love the Keynes v Hayek raps, I agree with LK that a place in 'see also' would be undue weight. It would sit much better in our Keynesian resurgence article, there's plenty of room there for you to add more Austrian School or other anti Keynesian perspective if you so wish. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Feyd. I'll add Fear to the resurgence article. Re the Further and References listings, I can't see the difference. Which of the Refs were used in the article? It does not make sense to have separate listings in that Notes and citations gives us references for each tidbit of info. Let's combine. Re the Bloomsbury group, I added the second ref, but I tagged both with hopes that better RS could be provided. Those there now look like SPS material. NBD.--S. Rich (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Youre welcome. Yep for now you could consolidate away References if you wanted to. In the long term, Im thinking it would be nice to use Harvard Ref style for this article. Its great for when we have multiple citations to the same book. Each cite then shows just the specific page relevant needed for the statement it supports. You can see an example the Harvard Ref style on the resurgence page. In the case of this article it will take quite a bit of time to sort out as there are effectively hundreds of bundled up references to unpick ...

Re Bloomsbury – I personally think the current refs are as good as we'd get (it depends on what we think their purpose is). For the lede statements generally dont need references unless they are controversial, especially when there is support from refs in the body of the article. In this case I think the web refs are nice as they let the reader see a bit more about the Bloomsbury connection, an area neglected a little in the article. Stronger refs like a top tier book just aren't needed and would be better omitted. Just my opinion, no strong feelings either way. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Dubious quote

The article uses a quote, allegedly by Keynes, that might not be his: "Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all." While it is often attributed to him, serious doubts have been raised regarding its authenticity, and I find them convincing.

What do you think? --Lior gimel (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged the quote as dubious and expanded the citation data for Eric Beinhocker (the source cited) to assist editors in finding the book.

Also see Wikiquote on Keynes --S. Rich (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)16:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

1st Baron?

While he was the first Baron, he died without heir. Thus, according to the (poorly referenced) Hereditary peer article the title goes extinct. To use the term "1st" implies -- incorrectly -- that there was a second baron. So simply titling Keynes as "Baron" without the "1st" is accurate and accords Keynes the proper honor. If there is WP:RS that says otherwise, I will happily concede. --S. Rich (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Connection to Newton

Keynes was instrumental in collecting and reassembling Newton's texts in 1937. There is no mention of this in the article.

23:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Joe Marasco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe marasco (talk • contribs)

Birth/death addresses

I know this is a very minor point, but why are both 'England' and 'United Kingdom' given in the places of birth and death? Addresses in the Britain are never written like this and it looks silly. Can we remove one or the other? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.86.55 (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Lydia Lopokova.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lydia Lopokova.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Lydia Lopokova.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

More "further reading"

A good book for beginners is Keynes. A Graphic Guide by Peter Pugh and Chris Garratt (London 2009, first 1993). --13Peewit (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

British?

Why is he British and not English? He was born in England to English parents. I can almost guarantee you had he been born in Wales or Scotland, there'd be no way under the sun he'd be allowed to be called British. He'd be Welsh or Scottish all the way. Have a look. I've yet to see one Welsh or Scottish person on this website described as British. Yet, at least half the English people I've read about here are labelled British. It appears the poor English seem to be some crude base type or template on Wikipedia which all other more worthy nationalities can build upon. A mongrel race or something. Or someone is ashamed to say they are English in case they what? Offend somebody? What's the story? Peter Greenwell (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Reception

Russell said that Keynes was very intelligent. Do you really think that this is "reception"? --13Peewit (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Relationships/Marriage

Hi community. I have a small issue with the article's structure which I would like to get other editors' views on. I personally feel that Keynes' marriage should be included within a broader "Relationships" section (two paragraphs at the moment) which places the marriage within the context of his earlier affairs, and gradual maturation (the lovely biography quote about renewed zeal for life etc.). There is also the fact that the Lopokova period of his life was not monogamous, but rather overlapped significantly with one of his male lovers, at least pre-nuptials as far as we can tell. I also feel that having the Lopokova relationship follow on from the Keynes quote about his feelings for Strachey provides a nice albeit ambiguous context to the relationship: that Keynes either fell majorly in love with her unexpectedly, or that it was a lavender marriage or in some sense motivated by careerism. Obviously Wikipedia shouldn't suggest either, but I felt that the including these paragraphs in one section makes for a much richer context to the marriage. Another editor feels that because marriage as an event is of special significance in itself, the Keynes-Lopokova relationship should have its own separate subsection, whereas I feel it earns its significance by dint of his previous affairs.Zythe (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

To understand how to best describe Keynes for our readers, it's close to essential to be familiar with the best secondary sources. At a very minimum, one should have read Lord Skidelsky's one volume biography. I don't see how anyone could have done this and still feel that Keynes had a lavender marriage. As Skidelsky and other major biographers relate, he fell deeply in love with Lydia. Skidelsky and others include numerous quotes showing his ongoing enchantment with her. Yes he still had sex with men for years after their first meeting, but after marrying he remained totally faithful. Lydia was sexually satisfied. The marriage was in many respects more significant than all Keynes earlier relationships combined. Not in sexual terms , but in the overall influence of the relationship on his life. Certainly biographers spend more space describing the marriage that they do all his previous sexual relationships. As well as satisfying Keynes strong desire for affection, devotion and loyalty, the marriage was crucial to Keynes's work, especially in his last years when his health was failing. As Skidelsky describes, Lydia's support was vital to Keynes as he laboured at Bretton Woods to help set up Embedded liberalism , or later when he negotiated post war loans for Britain. Turning to another recent biographer, Peter Clarke (2009) say on p56 that the marriage gave Keynes "a new focus, a new emotional stability and a sheer delight of which he never wearied". It absolutely deserves its own sub section.

All that said, you were spot on with your earlier remarks about the young Keynes being very likely 100% actively and enthusiastically gay. If you want to add a little more emphasis on that, go ahead. But please leave the marriage subsection. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That sectioning looks good to me.

On another note, in the photo labeled Painter Duncan Grant with Keynes. I really am not sure which one is which. They are both tall and both of their noses look shorter than in older photos of Keynes. Could that be explicated? Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Carol, 'tis done. FeydHuxtable (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It isn't about emphasising gay love affairs more, as you seem to be implying - I said the alternative to lavender marriage was it was a quite extraordinary case of falling in love with a woman. Both these things are enhanced by the paragraphs being presented in one continuous section. The fact that it gave Keynes "a new focus, a new emotional stability and a sheer delight of which he never wearied" is not in question; indeed, I said that the significance of the marriage is all the more for the context of Keynes' earlier affairs. To say that Keynes earlier affairs were unimportant isn't quite right — through Macmillan he became published, through Strachey he met the Bloomsberries, and so on. "The love of a good woman" isn't especially notable, nor is the love of any of those other lovers - the marriage is not underrepresented by being included as part of a larger section about his various love affairs.Zythe (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not extraordinary for a bisexual to fall in love with a member of the opposite sex. Or for a person who has had one sexual orientation (straight or homosexual) for first 20 or 30 years to find out they really were bisexual the whole time but didn't know it. Let's not impose the strict gay or straight dichotomy on the article since so many people are bisexual and don't know/won't admit it til later in life. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 13:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't presuming any such dichotomy.Zythe (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Hey, this discussion made me put a sexual orientation user box up - PANSEXUAL. Bisexual just too limited now a days, more than in his time! :-) Yeah!!! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)