Steve Kates apparently wrote:   
> What Hayek wrote was this (The Fatal Conceit, Routledge   
> 1988, p 57):   
>    "This extraordinary man [ie Keynes} also   
>    characteristically justified some of his economic   
>    views, and his general belief in a management of the   
>    market order, on the ground that 'in the long run we   
>    are all dead' (i.e., it does not matter what long-range   
>    damage we do; it is the present moment alone, the short   
>    run - consisting of public opinion, demands, votes, and   
>    all the stuff and bribes of demagoguery - which   
>    counts). The slogan that 'in the long run we are all   
>    dead' is also a characteristic manifestation of an   
>    unwillingness to recognise that morals are concerned   
>    with effects in the long run - effects beyond our   
>    possible perception - and of a tendency to spurn the   
>    learnt discipline of the long view."   
  
  
I think the question that has been raised might be restated   
like this: what "sympathetic reader" (i.e., one who is   
trying to understand the author and not just *impose* an   
interpretation, however perverse and contrary to the   
author's intent) would be able to read Keynes as Hayek here   
claims to interpret him?  Keynes is making a simple point,   
which I believe everyone one this list is capable of   
restating in language as simple though not as captivating,   
and nowhere is he suggesting that future damage is not   
a consideration in the selection of current action.    
Keynes's point seems obviously the near contrary:   
a prediction of eventual recovery is not *of itself* a valid   
excuse for not acting to improve current conditions.  I find   
this so obvious that I cannot imagine anyone seriously   
(honestly) suggesting that what Hayek presents above should   
be treated as a valid interpretation of Keynes's view of   
policy making.  If this is right, then anyone who speaks as   
Hayek does here should perhaps be disqualified as a serious   
participant in any discussion of Keynes's words (at least of   
these words), since a natural qualification for such   
a discussion is a willingness to understand what the author   
intended to communicate.  
  
I find Hayek's rhetorical move here similar to an   
interpretation of Hayek's emphasis on "effects beyond our   
possible perception" as, say, a justification of the   
brutality of Pinochet in terms of a predicted transformation   
of Chile.  
  
Cheers,  
Alan Isaac