The Attacks on the General Theory: How Keynes's Theory Was Lost

G. Harcourt, Peter Kriesler, J. Nevile
{"title":"The Attacks on the General Theory: How Keynes's Theory Was Lost","authors":"G. Harcourt, Peter Kriesler, J. Nevile","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2850798","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The General Theory showed that the main determinant of the level of output and of employment at any point of time was the level of effective demand. It did so in an environment of uncertainty using analysis in historical time. Unfortunately, most of Keynes’s insights were soon lost to the profession. This paper considers why this occurred. The most concerted and sustained attack on Keynes’s position was by Milton Friedman. Friedman argued that his work on permanent income as the major determinant of consumption invalidated Keynes use of the consumption function in The General Theory, with important implications for the multiplier and the efficacy of fiscal policy. The attack by the conservative right wing in America on Lorie Tarshis’s excellent 1947 Keynesian textbook , also played an important part in the dilution of the Keynesian message as did the resultant rise to dominance of Samuelson’s Economics: An Introductory Analysis. Given the great influence of Samuelson and the increasing tendency of American economics to dominate English language economics this contributed decisively to the undermining of Keynes’s theory and policy.","PeriodicalId":180753,"journal":{"name":"UNSW: Economics (Topic)","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"UNSW: Economics (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2850798","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The General Theory showed that the main determinant of the level of output and of employment at any point of time was the level of effective demand. It did so in an environment of uncertainty using analysis in historical time. Unfortunately, most of Keynes’s insights were soon lost to the profession. This paper considers why this occurred. The most concerted and sustained attack on Keynes’s position was by Milton Friedman. Friedman argued that his work on permanent income as the major determinant of consumption invalidated Keynes use of the consumption function in The General Theory, with important implications for the multiplier and the efficacy of fiscal policy. The attack by the conservative right wing in America on Lorie Tarshis’s excellent 1947 Keynesian textbook , also played an important part in the dilution of the Keynesian message as did the resultant rise to dominance of Samuelson’s Economics: An Introductory Analysis. Given the great influence of Samuelson and the increasing tendency of American economics to dominate English language economics this contributed decisively to the undermining of Keynes’s theory and policy.
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
对通论的攻击:凯恩斯理论是如何迷失的
通论表明,在任何时间点,产出和就业水平的主要决定因素是有效需求水平。它是在一个不确定的环境中使用历史时间分析做到的。不幸的是,凯恩斯的大部分见解很快就被专业人士遗忘了。本文探讨了这种情况发生的原因。米尔顿•弗里德曼(Milton Friedman)对凯恩斯的立场进行了最协调、最持久的攻击。弗里德曼认为,他关于永久收入是消费的主要决定因素的研究否定了凯恩斯在《通论》中使用的消费函数,这对乘数和财政政策的有效性具有重要意义。美国保守派右翼对洛里·塔希斯(Lorie Tarshis) 1947年出版的优秀凯恩斯主义教科书的攻击,也在淡化凯恩斯主义思想方面发挥了重要作用,萨缪尔森(Samuelson)的《经济学:介绍性分析》(Economics: an介绍性分析)由此占据主导地位。考虑到萨缪尔森的巨大影响以及美国经济学日益主导英语经济学的趋势,这对凯恩斯的理论和政策的破坏起到了决定性的作用。
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
Schumpeter's Assessment of Adam Smith and 'The Wealth of Nations': Why He Got It Wrong Multinational Suppliers: Are They Different from Exporters? Health Care Spending and Hidden Poverty in India Alternative User Costs, Productivity and Inequality in US Business Sectors Do Significant Labour Market Events Change Who Does the Laundry? Work, Chore Allocation, and Power in Australian Households
×
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