Keynes

[Robert Mahnke]

It's not the first time:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/may/04/niall-ferguson-apologises-gay-keynes

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 7:25 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> How could any serious intellectual person indict Keyne's theories because
> of his personal sexual or other fickle beings?
>
>
> On Saturday, January 16, 2016, Mark Thibodeau <jerkyleboeuf at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Good ol' Guido.
>>
>> He thinks we're all wrong about Hitler, too!
>>
>> Nice intellectual company you keep.
>>
>> J
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 3:34 AM, Kai Frederik Lorentzen
>> <lorentzen at hotmail.de> wrote:
>> >
>> > ... Keynes is a fascinating thing. He has been erected into some kind
>> of a
>> > colossal wax icon: he is one of those authors who, through posterity's
>> > massive, torrential, relentless and extraordinarily abiding
>> mythologizing
>> > effort, have come to lose all adherence to their historical, physical
>> > existence. And, deep down, Keynes was a mask of such fanatical vanity
>> that
>> > this kind of modern sanctification must have been precisely the type of
>> goal
>> > he had been striving to secure for his entire life.
>> >
>> > Discursively - I mean propaganda-wise - Keynesianism is (or used to be)
>> the
>> > sort of grand shibboleth that is systematically used and leveraged
>> whenever
>> > the speaker needs to strike the Liberal pose. In other words, when you
>> wish
>> > to appear as the sober, reasonable, competent, sharp and compassionate
>> > moderate, you begin to envelop yourself in Keynesian verbigeration: you
>> > start with, "as a Keynesian, I should say that ...", and then - to
>> impress
>> > upon the audience a comforting image of your expert and humane
>> "knowledge" -
>> > you go on dropping around abstruse nonsense such as "the liquidity trap"
>> > and/or "the investment multiplier" and the incontournable "deficit
>> > spending"."
>> >
>> > The objective of this standard psychical charade is to convey to those
>> > around you that: 1) quite evidently you understand perfectly and
>> technically
>> > what is being discussed (when, in truth, you don't); and 2) most
>> critically,
>> > that you are a well-bred bourgeois who is possessed by no indecorous
>> whim to
>> > challenge authority, but that you nonetheless have always taken a
>> deepest
>> > and purest interest in the fate of the poor little folk - hence,
>> > "keynesianally", you will always say that a little deficit-spending
>> (plus a
>> > tad of inflation) would surely relieve the wretched "charwoman". In this
>> > regard, to play the game in proper fashion, you always need, opposite
>> from
>> > you, an obnoxious curmudgeon of the conservative Right, who's cued to
>> bark
>> > about the merits of toughness, competition and the naturally self -
>> > regulating markets presently overburdened by the mad stupidity of the
>> > "Socialists". Simply said, the Keynesian stance is confected to play
>> "good
>> > cop" when the economy falls on black days: the Keynesian is the leftist
>> in
>> > good-standing expected to deplore the avidity of bankers and to invoke
>> the
>> > sanative power of the state to redress the ravages of corporate abuse.
>> It
>> > sounds and looks "good", but it neither solves nor explains anything.
>> >
>> > As for Keynes the man, from what we know, he seems to have cut a pretty
>> > despicable figure: arrogant, racist, a shameless thief of other people's
>> > ideas, an exploiter of the underclass (for male prostitutes), and a
>> > speculator. But more to the point, as a theorist, he was a total
>> nullity: he
>> > is the dottore of the commedia dell'arte, the pedantic character who
>> knows
>> > everything without understanding anything thereof.
>> >
>> > This man, who had been hailed by Time magazine in 1999 as one of the
>> > towering gods of the 20th century, failed miserably to comprehend every
>> > major event of his time: 1) Versailles, case in point; 2) Britain's
>> return
>> > to gold, which he denounced as the inane archaism that caused the Great
>> > Strike of 1926 (it was neither the former nor did it cause the latter);
>> 3)
>> > the coming and severity of the Slump; and 4) the Nazi recovery. As for
>> > Versailles, he did not have a clue as to what was being devised: he
>> stormed
>> > out of the conference moaning that Germany could not pay what was asked
>> of
>> > her, not intuiting, as Veblen did, that those astronomical sums were
>> never
>> > meant to be paid, but only, through the first series of "gold
>> installments",
>> > to burst the bubble of the German war debt.
>> >
>> > But then again, it was not his role to predict, intuit anything; he did
>> > exactly what the commedia expected of him: a nice little Keynesian
>> tantrum,
>> > followed by a book that told the story (nowadays it would have come
>> with a
>> > bonus DVD ... ) ... And then in 1941 (if I remember correctly) to crown
>> his
>> > remarkable dramatic career he was made a director of the Bank of
>> England;
>> > yes, imagine him, gloatingly gabbing away at the very feet of the High
>> > Priest, Montagu Norman ... That's Keynes, the great Keynes, the
>> champion of
>> > the enlightened middle-class ...
>> >
>> >
>> > Guido Preparata
>> >
>> >
>> -
>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20160116/a7026e09/attachment.html>