It is intruiguing to think that Keynes may (or may not) have attempted to assist the dictatorship of an Austrian (with German citizenship after 1932) who picked up anti-Semetism in Vienna (hatreds which Hayek's parents apparently contributed to) and whose path to power was assisted by the application of the Austrian business cycle promoted by Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon (plus the contagion caused by the collapse of the Austrian Credit-Anstalt bank).

How does Mises' support of fascism fit in here?  Or Hayek's 1978 defence of the "civilisation" of the Nazi-led apartheid regime against the "fashion ... of human rights" which the US discovered "two years ago or five years ago." Perhaps the only other country who could - and did - elect a Nazi (or ex-Nazi?) President at that time was Austria. Neither Machlup nor Popper thought it wise for Jews to return to the adopted fantasy land of so many Americans intellectuals.

RL      

----- Messaggio originale -----
Da: "James C.W. Ahiakpor" <[log in to unmask]>
A: [log in to unmask]
Inviato: Mercoledì, 16 novembre 2011 20:07:33
Oggetto: Re: [SHOE] Backhouse and Bateman, "Wanted: Worldly Philosophers"

Alan G Isaac wrote:
> On 11/14/2011 7:26 PM, James C.W. Ahiakpor wrote:
>> Now, Keynes himself, in the Preface to the German edition
>> of the /General Theory/ argues that "the theory of output
>> as a whole, which is what the following book purports to
>> provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of
>> a totalitarian state, than is theory of the production and
>> distribution of a given output produced under conditions
>> of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire"
>> (1936, xxvi).
>
>
>
> I do not think it is possible to accurately communicate
> what Keynes was saying here by cutting off the quote
> in this way.  Out of curiosity, how do you interpret
> what he is saying?
>
Frankly, I don't understand what Isaac fails to understand about what I 
wrote.  I take Keynes at his word, and I accept the views of his 
contemporaries that Keynes was capable of clear expressions.  As Roy 
Harrod (1936), for example, wrote of him, Keynes was someone "capable of 
matchless lucidity."

In any case, I elaborated the quote with my comment that members of the 
Mont Pelerin Society understood Keynes's vision well enough to have 
argued against it.  Perhaps, I should have included references to 
Hayek's /The Road to Serfdom/ and the Friedmans' /Capitalism and 
Freedom/ and /Free To Choose/ as pointing to the outcome of pursuing 
Keynes's program and arguing the capitalism or free enterprise 
alternative.  Maybe, if Isaac thought carefully about Keynes's program 
of socializing investments and pursuing the euthenasia of the rentier 
class (those who depend substantially on interest, dividend, and rental 
and income), he might appreciate why Keynes himself would say that his 
theory was more suitable for application in a totalitarian state.

May I also suggest that, if Isaac has not already read the works of 
Hayek and the Friedmans I cite above, he try to do so.  J.S. Mill has 
this good advice: If you know only your side of the story, you don't 
know the whole story!

James Ahiakpor

-- 
James C.W. Ahiakpor, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Economics
California State University, East Bay
Hayward, CA 94542

(510) 885-3137 Work
(510) 885-4796 Fax (Not Private)