Monday, June 7, 2010

Belated Happy Birthday and some thoughts

I missed the fact that this Saturday is Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes's shared birthday (Smith's on the old Julian calendar). I was alerted to this by a Cafe Hayek post. I want to be clear that Don held back on his snark, and simply provided an interesting trivia post. But it was definitely there in the comment section. One commenter wrote: "aside from their birthdays they do not have much in common". Another first guessed Smith and Marx, and then followed that up with "I was close... Keynes". A particularly regular and combative commenter wrote "one date to commemorate the beginning of a renaissance, the other its end" (I'll let Jonathan Catalan explain why that is an erroneous statement).

Why does Keynes illicit such a visceral reaction with people? I just don't get it. Lots of people disagree with Hayek, for example - but is there anyone out there that really bad-mouths him? Are there websites or blogs out there that regularly post pieces criticizing him and dragging not just his theories but his character and principles through the mud? Not that I'm aware of. Maybe this Quiggin guy who I'm not particularly familiar with - but what I hear about him is that he critiques Austrian theory without understanding it - not that he challenges Hayek's principles or allegiances. Brad DeLong is often held up as an example too, but his biggest misstep that people cite is claiming that Hayek was a "liquidationist". Again, no character assassination. You'll see people savaging libertarian politicians and otherwise "public figures", but they never savage libertarian theorists or economists. Why do people get this reaction with Keynes? It's bizarre.

Part of it might be due to Keynes himself. He did consciously try to distinguish himself from the Classical tradition. But I think we need to read between the lines (and I really don't think it's that hard to read between the lines). He had some good zingers, but if you read his works it's clear that these cracks on the Classics amounted to a child rebelling against his parents. He wanted to make a break and a distinction. But when he really sat down and worked through his ideas it was clear that he had very specific and well thought through disagreements with the classics, but that he respected them and the legacy they left. Rebellious teenagers grow up and realize that they do have differences with their parents (as Keynes does unequivocally have differences with the Classics), but that those differences emerge out of the context and legacy that their parents imparted to them. Keynes is a liberal. His ideas aren't identical to Smith's, of course, but the vitriol and the stark juxtaposition is just plain bad analysis.

Another comment just popped up on Cafe Hayek:

"Keynes = Marx + camouflage"

I always thought Austrians (1.) placed a high premium on logical claims, and (2.) didn't like equations. Apparently I was wrong on both counts.

8 comments:

  1. "You'll see people savaging libertarian politicians and otherwise "public figures", but they never savage libertarian theorists or economists."

    Well, if you think of Milton Friedman as a libertarian - and I do - he is savaged all the time. A common example of his perfidy is his supposed involvement with Pinochet (didn't happen, but you get the point). There are even anti-Milton Friedman posters that have started to populate most U.S. campuses, etc. in the past few years. I've never seen an anti-Keynes poster on a college campus.

    Example of one of the posters I have seen: http://sfist.com/2008/08/13/new_poltical_posters.php

    ReplyDelete
  2. More on Uncle Milty here: http://reason.com/archives/2008/09/26/defaming-milton-friedman

    ReplyDelete
  3. That's an excellent point. Milton Friedman is often sharply criticized. Friedman was very much a "public figure" in addition to a theorist, though - but that doesn't make that much of a difference here. Keynes was every bit as much the public figure as Friedman was.

    One potential difference is that Friedman is generally criticized in this way by people outside of economics. Keynes is called a fascist and a socialist by economists with PhDs teaching at universities. That seems like it should matter.

    Leftist activists are going to react viscerally to Friedman. Conservative and libertarian activists are going to react viscerally to Keynes. None of them probably understand Friedman or Keynes or their contributions in any depth.

    Why are people with doctorates in economics doing this with Keynes, though? In other words, I would HOPE that we can all agree that Naomi Klein is not comparable to an economics professor. Wouldn't we?

    I'm not justifying anything that's said about Friedman - and I do think it's a great one to point out because he's definitely savaged. I don't think "well they do it to Friedman too" would make me any less frustrated anyway - after all, I respect both Friedman and Keynes! But aside from that it still seems like it's not exactly the same.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It also depends on where you live; in the UK many on the left view Hayek as the devil in part because Thatcher associated herself with him (the whole banging the Constitution of Liberty on the table deal, etc.). Plus, during the 1970s Hayek was really involved in talking about the state of affairs in Britain - he openly discussed the whole Lib-Lab controversy, etc.

    Then again, throughout much of Eastern Europe Hayek is (was? don't know the current state of things really - things could have changed in the last ten to fifteen years) loved.

    I'm not an economist, but I'd hazard to guess economists (and academics more generally) are human beings before they are economists.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "I'm not an economist, but I'd hazard to guess economists (and academics more generally) are human beings before they are economists."

    We're robots, actually :)

    In seriousness - it still doesn't seem to explain the imbalance of it all. The public, etc. - that all makes sense to me. Do we know of any economists who have blogs regularly slinging mud at Hayek - not just disagreeing with his theories, but attacking his principles? That's the odd thing to me - not that economists are human, but that economists who just lose it and blast someone's character always seem to be targeting Keynes.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The imbalance? Well, Keynes has been the dominant figure in the field for a while now; plus he had the good fortune to die when he was on top. Even Milton Friedman is something of a second tier figure in comparison. And of course Hayek ... he got a Nobel and all, and "The Constitution of Liberty" and "The Road to Serfdom" still sell very well, but he's not a huge figure in the field like Keynes. Keynes gets a lot more attention generally; which means more negative attention too.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Missed this:

    "In other words, I would HOPE that we can all agree that Naomi Klein is not comparable to an economics professor. Wouldn't we?"

    Mileage varies in any profession. I mean, I have seen economists with tenure defend Cuba's system of government.

    ReplyDelete
  8. :) I imagine one can only make such claims with tenure

    ReplyDelete

All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.