How J M Keynes Corrected the Only Major Error He Made in His General Theory in His Correspondence with J. Robinson between September and November, 1936: His Mention of Mrs. Joan Robinson in the Preface to the General Theory

M. E. Brady
{"title":"How J M Keynes Corrected the Only Major Error He Made in His General Theory in His Correspondence with J. Robinson between September and November, 1936: His Mention of Mrs. Joan Robinson in the Preface to the General Theory","authors":"M. E. Brady","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3727672","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"J M Keynes stated the following on p.xii of his General Theory on December 13,1935: “I have also had much help from Mrs. Joan Robinson….who have read the whole of the proof-sheets.” (Keynes,1936, p.xii).<br><br>In the course of an extensive correspondence with J. Robinson in the months of September, October, and November,1936, over one of her books that she had sent him for review and comment, Keynes discovered that Joan Robinson had (a) no knowledge of basic undergraduate, lower division level training in international trade and exchange rates between two countries and, much, much more seriously, (b) had a serious lack of knowledge about his Liquidity Preference theory of the rate of interest that occupied all or some of chapters 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 21 of the General Theory.<br><br>It was now quite clear to Keynes that Joan Robinson had not understood what was in the final draft copy of the General Theory that he had given to her to read and comment on in June, 1935 and to which she replied in four days time:<br><br>“Given Keynes’s ambitions, limitations, and expectations, she could be useful, perhaps even valuable, in finishing the book. As in so many instances, events proved Keynes’s judgment sound even if not precisely in the way he anticipated. Within four days of receiving the second set of galleys, Robinson sent him an extensive and detailed set of comments as well as her general impressions of the book (Keynes 1973a, 638–45). How was this extraordinarily swift and thorough response possible? Keynes sent Harrod the galleys on June 5 but did not hear from him until July 31 (see Keynes 1973a, 526–27). Hawtrey’s set was sent on June 12, and he replied by the end of the month (1973a, 567). In four days, how could Robinson read a difficult and confusing book, digest it, and write elaborate and carefully crafted suggestions, many of which Keynes adopted?”(Aslanbeigui and Oakes, 2009, p.205; boldface added).<br><br>The correct answer to the question posed by Aslanbeigui and Oakes in 2009, which was “In four days, how could Robinson read a difficult and confusing book, digest it, and write elaborate and carefully crafted suggestions, many of which Keynes adopted?” (Aslanbeigui and Oakes, 2009, p.205; boldface added), in light of her extremely poor performance in the Keynes-Robinson exchanges of September-November, 1936, is that she was not the author who wrote the “…elaborate and carefully crafted suggestions” on the General Theory in four days. The true authors were Richard Kahn and Austin Robinson, just as they were most probably the true authors of The Economics of Imperfect Competition,1933.<br><br>Keynes now realized that Joan Robinson’s reply to him in 1935 was not her own. This conclusion follows directly from the first two sentences of Keynes’s letter of November 9th,1936 to Joan Robinson:<br><br>“I beg you not to publish. For your argument, as it stands, is most certainly nonsense.” (Keynes, 1936, CWJMK, Vol. 14, p.147; boldface added).<br><br><br>","PeriodicalId":226815,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3727672","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

J M Keynes stated the following on p.xii of his General Theory on December 13,1935: “I have also had much help from Mrs. Joan Robinson….who have read the whole of the proof-sheets.” (Keynes,1936, p.xii).

In the course of an extensive correspondence with J. Robinson in the months of September, October, and November,1936, over one of her books that she had sent him for review and comment, Keynes discovered that Joan Robinson had (a) no knowledge of basic undergraduate, lower division level training in international trade and exchange rates between two countries and, much, much more seriously, (b) had a serious lack of knowledge about his Liquidity Preference theory of the rate of interest that occupied all or some of chapters 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 21 of the General Theory.

It was now quite clear to Keynes that Joan Robinson had not understood what was in the final draft copy of the General Theory that he had given to her to read and comment on in June, 1935 and to which she replied in four days time:

“Given Keynes’s ambitions, limitations, and expectations, she could be useful, perhaps even valuable, in finishing the book. As in so many instances, events proved Keynes’s judgment sound even if not precisely in the way he anticipated. Within four days of receiving the second set of galleys, Robinson sent him an extensive and detailed set of comments as well as her general impressions of the book (Keynes 1973a, 638–45). How was this extraordinarily swift and thorough response possible? Keynes sent Harrod the galleys on June 5 but did not hear from him until July 31 (see Keynes 1973a, 526–27). Hawtrey’s set was sent on June 12, and he replied by the end of the month (1973a, 567). In four days, how could Robinson read a difficult and confusing book, digest it, and write elaborate and carefully crafted suggestions, many of which Keynes adopted?”(Aslanbeigui and Oakes, 2009, p.205; boldface added).

The correct answer to the question posed by Aslanbeigui and Oakes in 2009, which was “In four days, how could Robinson read a difficult and confusing book, digest it, and write elaborate and carefully crafted suggestions, many of which Keynes adopted?” (Aslanbeigui and Oakes, 2009, p.205; boldface added), in light of her extremely poor performance in the Keynes-Robinson exchanges of September-November, 1936, is that she was not the author who wrote the “…elaborate and carefully crafted suggestions” on the General Theory in four days. The true authors were Richard Kahn and Austin Robinson, just as they were most probably the true authors of The Economics of Imperfect Competition,1933.

Keynes now realized that Joan Robinson’s reply to him in 1935 was not her own. This conclusion follows directly from the first two sentences of Keynes’s letter of November 9th,1936 to Joan Robinson:

“I beg you not to publish. For your argument, as it stands, is most certainly nonsense.” (Keynes, 1936, CWJMK, Vol. 14, p.147; boldface added).


查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
凯恩斯如何在1936年9月至11月与罗宾逊的通信中纠正他在通论中唯一的重大错误:他在《通论》序言中提到了琼·罗宾逊夫人
1935年12月13日,凯恩斯在他的《通论》第十二页写道:“我也从琼·罗宾逊夫人那里得到了很多帮助....他们已经看了所有的校样。(凯恩斯,1936年,第12页)。1936年9月,10月和11月,凯恩斯与j·罗宾逊进行了广泛的通信,讨论了她寄给他审查和评论的一本书,凯恩斯发现琼·罗宾逊(a)没有基本的本科知识,在国际贸易和两国汇率方面的较低级别培训,更严重的是,(b)严重缺乏对他的利率流动性偏好理论的了解,该理论占据了通论第13、14、15、16、17、18和21章的全部或部分内容。1935年6月,凯恩斯把《通论》的最终稿交给了琼·罗宾逊,让她阅读和评论,她在四天后回复说:“考虑到凯恩斯的野心、局限性和期望,她在完成这本书方面可能是有用的,甚至可能是有价值的。”正如在许多情况下一样,事实证明凯恩斯的判断是正确的,即使不是完全按照他预期的方式。在收到第二套厨房的四天内,罗宾逊给他发了一份广泛而详细的评论,以及她对这本书的总体印象(凯恩斯1973a, 638-45)。这种异常迅速和彻底的反应是如何可能的?6月5日,凯恩斯派哈罗德去了厨房,但直到7月31日才收到他的消息(见凯恩斯1973a, 526-27)。霍特雷的那一套是在6月12日寄出的,他在月底就回复了。在四天的时间里,罗宾逊是如何读完一本难懂的、令人困惑的书,消化它,并写出精心设计的建议,凯恩斯采纳了其中的许多建议的?(Aslanbeigui and Oakes, 2009, p.205;黑体)补充道。2009年,阿斯兰贝吉和奥克斯提出了一个问题,正确答案是“在四天内,罗宾逊如何读完一本难懂的、令人困惑的书,消化它,写出精心设计的建议,凯恩斯采纳了其中的许多建议?”(Aslanbeigui and Oakes, 2009, p.205;鉴于她在1936年9月至11月的凯恩斯-罗宾逊交流中表现极其糟糕,她不是在四天内就《通论》写下“……精心设计的建议”的作者。真正的作者是理查德•卡恩(Richard Kahn)和奥斯汀•罗宾逊(Austin Robinson),正如他们最有可能是1933年《不完全竞争经济学》(The Economics of incomplete Competition)的真正作者一样。凯恩斯现在意识到,1935年琼·罗宾逊给他的回信不是她自己写的。这个结论直接来自凯恩斯1936年11月9日写给琼·罗宾逊的信的前两句:“我请求你不要发表。因为你的论点,就其本身而言,无疑是无稽之谈。(凯恩斯,1936年,《中国共产党》,第14卷,第147页;黑体)补充道。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
"The Eyes and Ears of the Agricultural Markets": A History of Information in Interwar Agricultural Economics Deepening and Widening Social Identity Analysis in Economics In Search of Santa Claus: Samuelson, Stigler, and Coase Theorem Worlds Reports from China: Joan Robinson as Observer and Travel Writer, 1953-78 Introduction to a Symposium on Carl Menger on the Centenary of his Death
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1