Talk:John Maynard Keynes

Template:WP1.0

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 (UTC)

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)

Neutrality problems for GA status

The "Versailles peace conference" and "In the 1920s" sections do not have one single reference. There are many other sentences/paragraphs that also don't have them. Taking into account the neutrality disputes and the lack of citations, I wouldn't think this article has a chance of a GA status. It's a pity, because it's a really interesting article.

• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, like .--andreasegde (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Ive added some refs to those sections, and for Versailles there's over 20 references in the main article. Ive tried to avoid too many references for non controversial points that are well known facts so as to avoid clutter - there is so much to say about Keynes & so little room in an 82k article. I've added another non Keynesian reference to the disputed section - if no one reverts it in the next few days, I'll ask Vision Thing if he minds the tag being removed. Not that I would object to being reverted as I kind of feel the section is now biased against Keynes, and its more important for the article to be NPOV than to get it promoted to GA status. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Influences/influenced/opposed

I changed some of the more glaring ones. Influenced by *Marx*? Keynes dismissal of Marx was consistent and thoroughgoing. How did he "influence" Gesell?--especially since he acknowledged Gesell's (sideways) contributions to his own thought in the General Theory. Selection of so-called new-Keynesians is selective, maybe someone else wishes to be appropriately encyclopedic, maybe someone who can feel comfortable deciding if e.g. Richard Kahn "influenced" or was "influenced by" Keynes. As for "influenced by" Smith and Ricardo--well, I suppose Einstein was influenced by Newton, I'm just not sure I'd bother mentioning it, but oh well...Doprendek (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks i guess youre right about Gesell, and we should give the info box some attention before putting this article up for FAC. In Skidelskys bio it says Keynes wasnt so dismissive of Marx until he personally visited Russia and saw how dismal things were there. On the first page of Shaw's Keynesian Economics: The Permanent Revolution it says that one of Keynes unique achievements was to reconcile Smith and Marx, as he synthesised ideas from both great economists, so there is probaby a case for keeping those two as influences. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Maynard Keynes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Protonk's review

Images

• File:John Maynard Keynes.jpg. It's not a terribly good picture of Keynes, but that isn't too important. The 'source' listed no longer exists, but the original source has been verified by OTRS.

Sorted. Will replace with a better pic once I can get one verified to upload as public domain.

• File:Goldkey_logo_removed.jpg. I'm not of the mind that a picture of gold is needed to illustrate a discussion about Keynes and the gold standard, but I fully admit that econ articles tend to have a shortage of helpful images.

I see your point but I rather keep it until a better one becomes available as it sets off the other images nicely. An aesthetically pleasing visual layout aids comprehension and retention of new facts, so I think it has encyclopaedic value.

• File:WhiteandKeynes.jpg should be linked as the 'original' of the first image above.
• File:MiltonFriedman.jpg is very likely non-free. It's closely cropped, low resolution, and lacking in source info. My guess is that it has been downloaded from a web page someplace. Friedman is dead, so a non-free image can be used, but a justification would have to be made for its use in this article.

had a go at doing the justification, also removed the tag as I improved the source / author info.

• File:GrantKeynes.jpg. The source claims to be from a book without a copyright notice. I could request it from inter-library loan to see if that's the case, but there is no indication of that online.

If youre at the library anyway it would be great if you could help verifying this image, as from a web search it seems to be the best one available for Keynes and Grant even if copyright wasnt an issue.

Ok. It will take a few weeks probably, but it will come eventually. Protonk (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• File:Lydia_Lopokova.jpg has a particular tag which I can't resolve because the image has no info.

There seems to be much better images of Lydia available which Ill try to confirm can be uploaded as PD. In the mean time it looks like the correct tag is one of two Public domain ones and we dont have the info to determine for sure which one to use. But as they are both PD there isnt an urgent issue here?

Not really if we know where the image is from. That's the crucial part. Once we have some evidence on the description page then the actual tag isn't important until FAC. Protonk (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(2ndreply) I'll ask the original uploader when im at work, my Vodafone connection is classing Commons as a restricted site. There's a lovely pic of Lydia at http://www.iconocast.com/B000000000000184_Korea/M7/News9.htm where she looks young enough that it has to be pre 1923, but as we cant say that absolutely 100% i guess i ought not upload it as PD , and as i dont know the copyright holder i dont think i can upload it as fair use?

• Is it too much to ask for an IS/LM curve? I know that Hicks and Wicksell are probably more closely connected to the construction of the 'curve' itself, but econ textbooks still refer to IS/LM as 'keynsian' with a hand-wave.

There are dozens probably hundreds of papers and book chapters looking at IS LM and from the ones Ive glanced at the consensus seems to be it is unKeynesian in the sense it contradictory to Keynes vision in a number of ways, principally that its contary to Keynes's position that due to the uncertain nature of expectations its dangerous to reduce economic behaviour to equations especially as a tool for policy analyses. Another issue being that in was to much of a compromise with the older classical view. On p548 of his single volume biographie [7] Lord Skidelsky implies Keynes felt this himself, despite his famous letter where he said he couldn't fault the model. Two of my other best sources , Minksy and Fletcher, seem to agree. Certainly we know several of Keynes closest disciplines like Kahn and Robinson became markedly hostile to IS LM. There's no doubt IS LM was for several decades of central importance to mainstream Keynesian economics and a heavily used polity tool, but thats more an argument for including it in the Keynesian economics section. Finally, although the model is extremely use for helping the mathematically trained economist to grasp the essence of the General Theory (or at least to think they do) I think for our average reader it will be frustrating as they might not understand how it related to Keynes without a lenghy explanation we dont have space for. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this ties in with the point below about Math. I think there is something critically important about the ISLM curve being so closely associated with Keynes despite his animus toward it. An article like Keynes, IS-LM, and the Marshallian Tradition could really substantiate the issue without digging too far into the arcana. I mean, we don't need to dig into the arcana of the model to say "here is this model that came to be synonymous w/ Keynes despite the fact that he had nothing to do with it, historian XYZ says this is why and this is the impact". Protonk (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(2ndreply) Yep i agree the best place for a pic and the discussion you're asking for is probably the maths article? For now ive added a brief mention of IS LM and link for the main article.

Major issues

Apart from what will be mentioned below, these are some large problems with the article which need to be fixed:

• There is a NPOV tag on the article. I haven't worked down in detail so I can't determine its justification.

the disputing editor has kindly agreed not to re add the tag once its removed. I personally think that the section is now biased against Keynes unless ones looking at it from a purely academic perspective, so hopefully while the other editor still has concerns in the other direction, so hopefully it all balances out.

• John_Maynard_Keynes#Reception is a mess. 15 subsections, each presented as quotes from various persons. It should be possible to give a narrative form of critique from a monetarist standpoint. I also had a chuckle at Murray Rothbard being in company with Schumpeter and Friedman.

This is one of your points I least agree with though I can see that what your saying is in line with standard practice for good article. I just feel Keynes is an exceptional case and ought to be treated exceptionally. He received a highly polarised reception which defies easy summary. (though one can say immediately after his death the obituaries were almost uniformly glowingly positive , the overall picture is much more complex.) The several large collections of critical responses seem to keep their editorial commentary to a minimum and devote by far the devote the bulk of their space to repeating the critics original responses. So I think Im following the sources by letting the reception speak for itself. I did have slightly more narrative in the section but an editor objected to it as editorial puff. I think it looked much better when I was using cquote, but the MOS says to use plain block quotes except for pull quotes , do you think I could go back to cquote? We have some of Milton's man to man response which I think is most suited to a bio article. The monetarists critique was much more aimed at Keynesian economics as it was practiced many years after Keynes death, and a strong case can be made it was no longer really Keynesian in the sense that the man himself would have fully approved. I think what you're asking for here belongs in articles detailing the history of monetarism and Keynesian economics. (Though I expect to somewhat expand what Ive already said on the subject in the main Keynesian Resurgence article. ) As for Murray, he seems to be highly respected by the Austrian School and many libertarians, so I definitely think his view should be included. I like his honesty, at least he admits Keynes converted the entire Austrian School in England apart from Hayeck himself, whereas as many free market propagandists like to claim that in the 30's only Hitler listened to Keynes! See the General Theory article for example.

More on this later. Protonk (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• The image issues above should be worked out.

Ive tried to do what I can on short notice. If you decide to fail on these grounds Id rather that than remove any images as I think they're close to indispensible to helping the reader gain an understanding of the subject. Before submitting the article to FAC, I intend to get down to the British library then I can verify that some of the excellent images of Keynes and Lydia and maybe some of his other friends were published prior to 1923 then i can upload them as Public domain. Might be a few months before i have time.

Sources

• I like Heilbroner's Worldly Philosophers take on Keynes. Heilbroner is avowedly critical of Friedman and supportive of Keynes, but the few chapters related to the rise and fall of Keynsianism work well.

It looks like an excellent book and i plan to order it next time im on Amazon. Its already included as a citations, as some editors seem to think the best sources should be used as cites? If you wish I know other sources for the quote it supports, so am happy to move it to the reference section?

My copy is on permanent loan. It should remain as a cite for that quote, but I was just suggesting that if you have a copy you could read the chapter on Keynes and get a good history of the man. Protonk (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Update Found it. Now that I'm rereading it, Heilbroner is a good source to use for WP because he loves to contextualize, but I'm surprised he avoided mentioning Keynes' homosexuality at all. Protonk (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(2ndreply) Thanks again for the tip. Sources that contextualise are like gold dust, i think its very valuable to put influential ideas in context but some editors like to say its OR unless your sources specifically mention the subject. I should have the book soon and hope to use it for further improvements! Have read that until skidelsky wrote about Keynes his homosexuality was largely hushed up per predujices, i guess you know what happened to Turing and all that.

• For references where you have the work cited in References and footnoted in Notes, I find it is easier on the reader to condense those notes to Author/Date/Page. The MOS isn't too specific about this and different editors hold different opinions on the subject.

I dont think that notation is used. A common convention seems to be that when you have a citation , the same source shouldn't be in the reference section? It might not seem this way from a quick glance, but the Skidelsky books in the references are different from the single volume version used for many cites, plus the commanding heights Reference is to the printed book, whereas the cites are to web pages or videos available on the net.

It isn't too important. The notation isn't really mandatory, I just feel that it really cleans the page up. Protonk (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keynes wrote an obituary for Alfred Marshall in The Economic Journal. Might be interesting to include that. Post on my talk page if you want a PDF of the article.

Yep I seem to remember is was very well regarded, will try to include a brief mention.

I mentioned it specifically because Alfred Marshall is in the 'opposed' section of the infobox. Protonk (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(2ndreply) Its now mentioned in the 20s section, also with a sentence further down to suggest how he became opposed to Marshal with the General Theory.

• "In 1968 Milton Friedman had completed a rigorous demonstration that the fixed relationship implied by the Philips curve did not exist." Which article is this? I know of role of monetary policy but I'm not sure that qualifies as a rigorous demonstration. Either way we ought to cite that article if it is the intended reference.

Will have to check sources i dont have with me. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(2ndreply) Yeah rigorous was maybe POV , ive changed the wording and added the cite.

Style issues

• The third paragraph in the lede could stand to be a little longer and a little more balanced. One sentence is devoted to the entire decade of the 1970s (and the cite is unnecessary), the next two sentences refer to events in the last few years.

Will try and tweak it a bit, but i feel the average reader will me interested in the last few years as this is where Keynes legacy in having enormous influence on our current prospects for economic recovery.

• some of the see also links are repeated from the article body text.

Had better locate and delete then i guess.

• Some of the external links might be better off as sources. For example, the LBGT encyclopedia and the discussion about Keynes and Australia. Some can probably be removed, like Newsweek's cheat sheet and the various links to southern domains.

Glbtq is already a cite so I guess Ill remove that. Id prefer not to remove newsweek as i think we should cater for folk who like easily digestible sourcres, and the southern domains article look s quite interesting. I wouldn't object if someone else removes them. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Protonk (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Some suggestions

• I would suggest that 'education' be gently merged into 'early life' so that a semi-chronological story can be told. a rough and tumble way to do it would be to insert the first para in education after the first para in early life and the second para in edu into the second para in early life. The third para in early life makes for a good capper to the section as a whole and doesn't work well when followed by a discussion of his prep school days.

Can see the advantage to that.

A couple of few advantages. It shaves prose space, eliminates a branch in the TOC, allows that portion of the biography to flow better, and makes your GA reviewer happier. ;) Protonk (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• In the 1920s section should be broken up into at least two paragraphs, and sufficient contextual linking should be made to help the readers understand what the text is referring to.

will do

• "For commentators such as economist Hyman Minsky, Keynes's limited use of mathematics was partly the result of his scepticism about whether phenomena as inherently uncertain as economic activity could ever be adequately captured by maths." Hints at a larger biographical role that mathematics hold for us. Keynes used his editorship at TEJ to push away mathematically heavy articles--a pressure which has been cited as vaulting Econometrica to the top so quickly.

Due to space concerns, I wonder if you or LK would agree that creating a Keynes and Mathematics article might work? I think theres enough to say to get it to start class. In addition to your point, we could have more on Keynes mathematical contributions and degree at Cambridge. His strong (considering the times and his intended audience) use of numbers in early works like Economic Consequences. His pushing for better statistical information on output, employment, GDP related data etc. The fact his mathematical ability declined in his 50s and he started to rely on students like Keynes for advanced calculations. (But he still retained an excellent command of numerical data with stunned his colleagues during the Breton Woods negotiation.) His general view that maths is indispensible for achieving a historical picture of events and analysing the effect of past policies, but that it is dangerous to rely on maths too much for making predictions and to determine policy. Commentators have mentioned how recent events in the markets have proved him right, such as LTCM in the 90s or the 2008 crises. Leijonhufvud has a great paper on how the Feds retention of one of the Monetarists formulas relating to inflation (based on retail prices excluding assets) being a key factor that led to the asset bubble.

Keynes and math(s) would make a wonderful article. Roy Eppstein's history of econometrics has some info (IIRC) about Keynes's leadership of TEJ (Almost the reverse of Edgeworth's activities less than a generation before) leading to good math heavy articles moving to Econometrica. I think that a complete picture on wikipedia is far in the future, but that a short summary can be offered without losing the reader in the weeds. Protonk (talk)

(2ndreply) Im having some ideas for how it can be a really sexy article, as well as all the above we can have the key equations Keynes produced, as well as the more expressive functions that were later used to formalise his mostly verbal descriptions in the GT. Is probably several weeks or maybe months away as there are several sources id better read first.

• No mention of Keynes's opinions about americans in general? Or more specifically, his ordinal ranking of Men from Oxford first, Cambridge second, then Englishmen, then maybe other folks? This question is kind of tongue in cheek but he wasn't shy about declaring that the world ought to be run by a certain set of folks. :)

I think he just said that sort of thing to mess about. Some of his private conversation did use the standard racist stereotypes but his actions and public pronouncements werent racist at all. His preferred candidate as the first head of the IMF was a Indian for example. The only way he was genuinely elitist was that he felt those operating the levers of power should be well educated in both the moral and technical sense. Skidelsky neglects this aspect, but its covered in the Cunningham source. Generally Keynes was very positive about Americans. Some of the edge of his Criticism of Wilson was due to his disappointment that he didn't live up to his promise of rescuing the world from the decadent princes of the old world. In the 30's when much of the European academic elite were looking to Russia, Keynes still held that America was the key economic laboratory from which to learn progressive lessons. Though White often overruled Keynes at Breton Woods, even in his private communication Keynes was very possible about the American. You might be thinking about what Keynes had to say just before his death during and immediately after his negotiations with the Americans for the loan. This is the one time Keynes was close to having a nervous break down. He saw it as the culmination of American efforts to use their financial leverage to ensure the War finished Great Britain as a great power. Which he felt was profoundly unfair as if Britain had made a proportionately much higher sacrifice for the war. Which anyway can be seen as being more in Americas interests than ours (Hitler was mad keen to remain at peace with Britain / countering aggressive old world imperialism was much more an American concern.) And as Keynes saw Britain as a force for good and was concerned about the effect on prosperity of the load settlement. So anyway its not surprising Keynes wasnt too happy about the Americans in that period, but it was not at all is normal position. Finally, I dont recall any of the serious sources Ive read offering a concise summary of Keynes view on Americans , and as an editor has already said the article is too Anglo – American orientated I think it might be best to leave this out. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall that this american life interviewed Alan Blinder and he made a sort of chuckling reference to Keynes's opinions about Oxford grads vs. the rest of the world. :) It's not a bit deal. Protonk (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor issues

• Under 'field' in the infobox, both Political Economy and Probability Theory are noted. While both are true, the infobox might have neglected another big one. ;)

Indeed!

• "resigned his position to return to Cambridge and work on probability theory, at first privately funded only by two Dons at the university – his father and the economist Arthur Pigou." What's a "Don"?

Ill wik link to University don

• "the Treasury were largely excluded from formal high-level talks concerning reparations; their place taken by the Heavenly Twins." I know heavenly twins is hatnoted and wikilinked, but the paragraph could do with some in text explanation of what is a peculiar nickname.

I think it might serves to draw the reader in to the very interesting dedicated article, but Id be happy to use a more prosaic name for the two Lords and just have the Main article link? ( I just think explaining the handle would take too many words)

Explaining the handle may be too much, or it may not. "under pressure from so-and-so, Keynes' influence in paris was eclipsed (eh?!) by the Heavenly Twins, Lord So's Your Uncle and Baron Oldmoney, whose nicknames stemmed from the astronomical reparations they would demand from germany" Protonk (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Treaty of Versailles could also be hatnoted or wikilinked in the section on the treaty.

ok, that article was heavilly tagged when i last looked.

All the more reason to link it. Protonk (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• As I recall, portions of A Treatise on Money actually conflicted with The General Theory. Heilbroner lavishes some time on this point. Also, the During the Great Depression section breezes through 1930-1936 too quickly. There is a period of time where Keynes has great influence on American economic policy which is normally credited to The General Theory--a credit which is temporally impossible, by 1936 deficit spending to return the country to full employment is in full swing. A discussion of Keynes's official and unofficial consultations w/ American officials would be beneficial here.

Yes and theres a lot more that could be said on the conflict with his earlier work but due to space Id rather that be discussed in the main General Theory article? Again Id rather flesh out Keynes's consultations in the main article on the Revolution. Actually theres a way in that GT could have influenced decisions before 1936. Keynes had been releasing sections of it unofficially to get feed back well before publication, and sections had found their way over to the US which contributed to the excitement building up there among economics students. Schumpeter talks about it in one of his review of Keynes which should be in the Seymour Hariss source that should be fully accessible on Google Books

Actual conflicts between Treatise on Money and General theory can be kicked back to a theory article--scratch what I said above, I found my copy of The Worldly Philosophers--pages 267-271 in the 7th edition talk about Treatise vs. Theory. 274-278 talks about Keynes sending notes and writing letters and opeds. The human interaction of Keynes 'in' washington in the early-mid thirties should be included. Protonk (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Keynes had been advocating stimulus type measures from about 1925, and had wrote to Roosevelt in 1933. Lord Skidelsky however says there's general consensus that his ideas didnt achieve much influence on US decision making until 1939, which seems to agree with others sources like Minsky and Fletcher.

(2ndreply) I've added a bit, there's more that could be said about meetings with Frances Perkins , Herbert Hoover , Henry Morgenthau, Jr ect but as the sources say little resulted from then I thought I better not talk about them too much to avoid balloning the article?

• "At the time there was little theoretical support for Keynes's position that it wouldn't be in even America's own long term interest to have their national currency serve as de facto international legal tender. It was only in the 1960s this concept was formally treated as the Triffin dilemma." This sentence is pretty awkward.

Will try and think of a better way to say it.

• Economics: out of favor 1979–2007 could do with a rewrite. The bookends of the section are 1979/2007, but much of the content refers to works or events prior to 1979. Even the first sentence indicates that plenty had been brewing behind the scenes before 1979 (at least in England).

Agreed. Its pesky as the official date Keynesian economics was dropped by the UK is 79, but as you say hostile forces were gathering much earlier.

This links in with my comment in the lede above. Friedman's 1968 paper begins the shot across the bow...or really, A Monetary History of the United States begins the internecine fight. If we expand this section a little and include the 70s more fully, the paragraph in the lede will be easier to flush out. Protonk (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• No mention of South America in the Keynsianism out of favor section?

South America's story is one of huge interest and importance, but I feel its decoupled from Keynes's on a number of grounds. Haven't looked at the academic work in great depth, my two main sources are my sister whos done extensive out reach work there and Naomi Klein. Id love to include a mention so if you or LK can point out anything im missing that would be great. We could begin the story in 1948 with the then youthful UN setting up its Economic Commission for Latin American, headed by Raul Prebisch. They often call Prebisch the South American Keynes , but thats more because he was of similar status as an economic evangelists rather than as he held the same views. He inspired a wave of young economists who helped organise a golden era of development across the continent that lasted until the mid 60s. Although his ideas drew strength from Keynes he's never called a Keynesian as far as Im aware? He was already an expert practioner before the General Theory was published, though at that stage much more of a senior trade negotiator for Argentina than an economist. His economics had several points of departure from Keynes, being optimised to the needs of developing nations He was more socialist, and more focused on international trade , especially protectionism. (though still arguably a moderate, his students were often much more progressive & protectionist than he was). All the IPE papers ive read on the subject draw a distinction between his Developmentalist economics and Keynesianism. Granted there was a similar intellectual attack by our pal Friedman, and it was supported by some in the US administration even as early as 1955 when at home they were becoming ever more convinced that Keynes was right. But political types were motivated not against the Keynesian element but as they feared the socialist tendencies might develop into full on communism. They set up a university in Santiago that later spawned franchise in other South American counties, and they gave scholarships so some of the best students good attend the University of Chicago itself. However, though many bright young South American were convinced and became ardent advocates of the free market, they were ineffectual in influencing decision makers or penetrating Latin Governments. That didn't happen until various coups brought right wing governments into power. There's disagreement as to the degree of US involvement, but certainly the resulting shift to the free market often tended to favour foreign business interests. Just as free market fundamentalism gained ascendency without triumphing intellectually, so was it driven back. Unlike the rest of the world, this was happening on a major scale before the current crises. A very pleasing alliance of spirit filled believers often working under the mighty banner of Christian Socialism were striving hand in hand with pragmatists like Da Silva and with atheist communists to push through progressive changes . The storys much more about politics , praxis and power plays and far less about economic theory. Theres a strong spiritual dimension , but I guess folk dont expect to learn about this sort of thing on any encyclopaedia and any way Im not seeing how link it to Keynes.

• "Others have argued it was not so much excessive Keynesian activism that caused the economic problems of the 1970s but the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system of capital controls, which allowed capital flight from countries the markets viewed as excessively Keynesian or socially progressive" Who?

The American Prospect i guess as the writer is a co editor there. Im seem to remember reading the idea several times years back in some serious sources, will see what I can find.

• Economics: The Keynesian Resurgence of 2008–2009 the first paragraph is very well paced. The second paragraph spends a great deal of time talking about international coordination for stimulus plans. Too much focus on that element of the resurgence?

Will work on the second paragraph, but there was has been considerable high level agreement that international co-ordination was a key element of the response.

It was, but it occupies a HUGE part of a biography of Keynes here...where it maybe shouldn't. Protonk (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• "The works on Keynes of Hyman Minsky,[11] Robert Skidelsky,[7] Donald Markwell[44] and Axel Leijonhufvud[45] were widely cited.[citation needed] Other prominent Keynesian economists include Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, Joseph Stiglitz." This is an oddly phrased sentence. What is it meant to say?

It wasnt myself or LK who added that section. I guess the editors felt their work was an important element of the resurgence. Ill try and find the requested cite and otherwise might remove those lines and have them just in the main article.

It's just an oddly phrased sentence. I guess the editor was trying to say that 'here are these guys who think Keynes is still relevant and important', but it is awkward as written. Protonk (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Economist and current prime Minster of India Manmohan Singh spoke powerfully in favour of Keynesian fiscal stimuli at the 2008 G-20 Washington summit" Is it necessary that we say "powerfully"?

Guess not, will remove.

• International Relations This is a throwaway section and can probably be merged somewhere.

Will give it a go. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Overall

I'm going to place this article on hold. The minor stuff can be fixed at any pace, so long as some bulk of it is dealt with I'll pass the article, but the major problems need to be hammered out. I didn't give line by line recommendations for the criticism sections because I think they need to be totally reworked. I'm happy to talk about any of the recommendations above, all I ask is that you thread responses to individual concerns where at all possible. Thanks and good work on the article! Protonk (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OMG! OMG! OMG!! This wasnt exactly what i was exspecting. Thanks for the very detailed review, I'll try to address all your comments soon. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review. Ill be coming back soon to respond to your points in total. Then depending on any answers I hope to edit the article probably on Sunday to address concerns. I'll try to do all edits at once to ensure the article still works as a whole. Just want to make a general point on the suggestions for new inclusions. Please correct me if Im wrong, but my understanding is we should be aiming to keep to the 82KB size limit? Ive not seen a longer article as a FA candidate though several seem to come in at exactly 82KB. So even as it stands the article needs some trimming , and would need further trimming to make room for any new additions. For this reason im reluctant to make substantial new additions unless anything central has been missed out, but will still respond to the specific suggestions above. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Readable prose clocks in at 44kb (that's because there are so many blockquotes) prose including blockquotes clocks in at 67kb. Those, I think, are the important benchmarks, rather than file size or total text size. Admittedly I don't spend any time at FAC, but Harvey Milk is probably a good idea for an upper limit on size. BTW, I'm using this tool to check page size. Protonk (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks that good to know. I replied again to some of the points above prefixing with (2ndreply) each time so you can quickly find the responces. Thanks again for your input , which is really improving the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Passing as GA

I'll pass this article, as it meets the GA criteria. I want to thank you and LK (among others) for writing this and you, FeydHuxtable for responding so passionately to criticism above. I still feel that the mathematics and economics of keynes should play some larger role in this biography (I guess I should write that Keynes and math article, eh?) and I still feel that the criticism section needs to be reworked, but those are issues for FA, not GA. Thanks for your help (I should get those image tags up to date whenever I get that book). Protonk (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Why there is nothing in the Critiques Sections outside Bourgeois Economics

1. Because the various mentions in passing of the supposed saving of Capitalism, JMKs intent to refute Marxist theory, etc. are presumed to cover the matter.
2. Because bourgeois, i.e. capitalist economics, is a received perspective which even now at this late stage, only a relatively few economists in the Anglo-Saxon world dare look beyond.
3. Finally, the actual work of summarizing the work of, e.g. Mathematical Economics that does¹ look beyond this restricted world view to general economic reality independent of the current mode of production, crises in which, a topic central to this article, can really only have a thorough scientific treatment when that basis, mode of production, is not taken as a given, that editorial work has not been and likely will not be done. It would not violate OR since such sources are available, but would require that the world view alluded to and taken as a given be looked beyond, you know like before it has completely and utterly been discredited by reality.

So if you came here looking for something beyond the standard, as Paul Krugman in a current NYT article recounts "Freshwater" and "Saltwater" US economic cant, as I did, I believe the above is the reason you won't find it. 71.186.179.146 (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

---

¹ viz: that done in 70s/80s in Japan, google fujimori morishima yamaguchi, e.g: [8], the chinese expat Wen Li currently ([9]), etc..

Hi, when I get round to exspanding the Resurgence article I plan to add this link from countercurrents which critiques the resurgence from a ultra progressive / Marxist perspective. If you're thinking there should be earlier left wing criticisms please let us know what you have in mind or add them to the article yourself. I know Keynes was heavilly criticised from the left in the 30s and 40s and have alluded to that in the article, but Im not really aware of any sutiable specific criticisms to add. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well take it you mean earlier than March 2009, the date on that article. Most of the polemics in response to Keynes would be prior to that. The stuff today is likely to be various flavors of weak and/or tired sauce and a really good treatment would run up against OR and defenders of the existing order who are legion in their patrol of articles like this. Did do some cleanup on Crisis (Marxian) which you might note in a See Also § Not aware of the use of the term "Ultra Progressive" but I like it. It somehow avoids the semantic baggage and historical connotation of the term "Ultra Left" as designated by Lenin and others. 71.186.179.146 (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Manmohan Singh pic

Here's a source that supports the caption for the pic: Indian Times however I dont think we need to add it to the article as the rules for OR are relaxed for pics?