From the Archive Banner

Home » From the Archives \

Here Today, Keynes Tomorrow?

By
Published: 26 September 2010
Here Today, Keynes Tomorrow?
  • Tweet this!

    Tweet This

  • Post on Facebook

  • Digg this

    Post to Digg

  • Tweet this!

    Stumble this!

Keynesian ideas seem to pop up time and time again, especially in times of crisis. Keynes himself even sensed the impact his theories were going to have. When Keynes was writing the General Theory he wrote to George Bernard Shaw in 1935, “…you have to know that I believe myself to be writing a book on economic theory which will largely revolutionize – not, I suppose, at once but in the course of the next ten years – the way the world thinks about economic problems.”

Sadly, Keynes prediction turned out to be true. Naturally, Austrian Economists were some of the leading critics of Keynes’s ideas. In fact, many believe the debate in economics in the 20th century boils down the ideas of Keynes vs. the ideas of F.A. Hayek and Keynes, at least initially, won the battle. As Paul Samuelson had brought the Keynesian revolution to America with his 1948 textbook, Economics, which by this time Keynesian ideas were the norm.

Samuelson’s textbook, however, was only the second textbook to present Keynesian ideas. Stanford economist Lorie Tarshis wrote the first Textbook to bring Keynes to American universities with The Elements of Economics, published in 1947. The Foundation for Economic Education, being at this time, the only free market think tank published many critiques of Keynesianism. So, it was natural for the Foundation to question whether they should attack Tarshis’s book. In today’s document Henry Hazlitt writes to Leonard Read on October 22, 1947 about Tarshis’s textbook.

He argues it is not necessary for the Foundation to attack the book. He believed the Foundation had more important things to do and should instead attack Keynes directly because all Tarshis had done was to take Keynes’s ideas and “simply added a dash of mud and dishwater.” So, there was no reason to give the book attention. In hindsight, Hazlitt may have been right as Tarshis’s book quickly lost popularity, arguably due to its excessive sympathy to communism, in favor of Samuelson’s book.

What lesson should we take away from this today? The problem is that Keynes does not seem to be going away anytime soon. Keynes’s ideas may continue to pop up in books like Tarshis’s, where it is quickly forgotten, but they have also been popping up in books like Samuelson’s, where it has continuing influence. Hazlitt was right in a sense, we should not worry about attacking every watered down Keynesian argument that comes our way but instead attack the ideas at its foundation. To do so we must learn to make better and stronger arguments if we want to see Keynesian ideas gone forever.

Download Henry Hazlitt’s Letter to Leonard Read about Tarshis’s Textbook here.

5 Comments »

  1. [...] Sadly, Keynes prediction turned out to be true. Naturally, Austrian Economists were some of the leading critics of Keynes’s ideas. In fact, many believe the debate in economics in the 20th century boils down the ideas of Keynes vs. the ideas of F.A. Hayek and Keynes, at least initially, won the battle. As Paul Samuelson had brought the Keynesian revolution to America with his 1948 textbook, Economics, which by this time Keynesian ideas were the norm.” Read more. [...]

  2. On a similar note, interested readers might also want to look at Levy and Peart.

    See here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1517983

    and here: http://www.gmu.edu/depts/rae/archives/VOL19_2-3_2006/3-Levy_Peart.pdf

    When investigating Samuelson’s strange practice of adjusting the horizontal axis labels on soviet growth projections in his text books, Levy and Peart began to notice strange correlations between textbook sales and the position that such texts were taking on this issue.

    If memory of discussing these topics with Levy correctly. Levy reported trying to find a reason for Samuelson’s obvious errors amidst high text book sales success. Other major text book sellers didn’t chime in as much on the issue.

    Heilbroner and Alchian and Allen stood out as interesting outliers because of their ideological openess. But neither were so brazen as to print the predictions.

  3. Lorie Tarshis’s book was very good textbook summary of Keynes’s General Theory.
    The belief that it was sympathetic to communism is pure nonsense:

    http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2010/07/three-varieties-of-keynesianism.html

    The debate between Austrians and Keynesians was intense in the 1930s and 1940s, and the Austrians lost that debate.

    Hayek’s business cycle theory was shown to have severe flaws by economists like Sraffa and Kaldor.

  4. Being penpals with a fabian socialist like Shaw should have discredited Keynes then and there.


  5. The Austrians did not lose the debate intellectually – they lost the debate because Austrian Economics does not give instant gratification to power-mongers. Keynesian Economics appeals to governments as a way to line the pockets of the politically connected while increasing the governmental power-base. I don’t find fault with politicians for this – even the most altruistic person is interested in the support, improvement and safety of themselves and their family – but Keynesian Economics is not a path to general prosperity. It is a path that exploits the capital of the many for the profit of a few, the same old totalitarian song that has been sung in every civilization for thousands of years.

    The business cycle has been shown, time and time again, to be the result of meddling, usually by government, in part or all of the free market economy. Hayek, Mises and Rothbard have been vindicated, but Keynesian Economics is the current preferred method of the statist to centralize power and wealth and as long as we subject ourselves to the rule of such people, we can expect more of the same.

Have your say!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

© 2009 | Foundation for Economic Education | 30 S Broadway, Irvington-on-Hudson, NY 10533 | 1-800-960-4FEE (1-914-591-7230) | Fax 1-914-591-8910 | Log in