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