Dismissive bombast is required in this community. What should be more encouraged, though, would be more specific take-downs. On that note, I sidled over to your link and found, to my eye-rolling dismay, that you had quoted silliness to support your bombast.
I've read neither Keynes nor Rallo, but Keen, him I've read, and Yves Smith. Smith was the first to point out that Keynes' TGT was complex enough that far too many economists read nothing more than the crib notes on the book and called themselves experts. Some of these experts later took their very, very abridged and even bastardized versions of Keynes and got jobs in government. Not a good mix, as it turned out, and as I think we would agree. What's been called "statist" is largely policy named for Keynes, but which has very little relationship with what Keynes actually wrote or discussed.
Keen pointed out one very troubling re-reading (bastardization) of Keynes; Hicks' IS-LM. It isn't Keynesian at frickin' all. It is, rather, a micro-economic tool banged with a mallet until it kinda sorta fit into Keynes' work, but only that portion of Keynes that the bastardizers created. It simply doesn't work as a macro-econ tool, according to Keen.
So what do I read in your linked review? "As a plus, at the end of the book, Rallo also provides a critique of the IS-LM model developed by John Hicks and Franco Modigliani which formalized Keynes's theory and is still taught at universities around the world."
So, to Austrians, is the word "formalize" synonymous with "bastardize" and "corrupt?" I call bullshit. Hicks is as truly Keynesian as Hayek is Marxist.
Rallo's criticism of Keynes further falls flat on his discussion defending Say's Law. Yes, according once again to Keen, ". . . in several ways Keynes obscured what Say actually meant." (Keen, p. 210.) Keen therefore quotes Say's Law directly and demonstrates in Debunking Economics why Keynes was more right than Say. Both Say and (later) Walras missed a key ingredient that Keynes noticed, but sadly did not develop explicitly enough for others to understand before his death:
The Say's Law/Walras's Law fallacy of ignoring the role of credit is the foundation of the neoclassical (and Austrian) argument that 'general gluts' and depressions are impossible, and that all crises are really sectoral imbalances which can be corrected by price adjustments alone. Once this fallacy is removed, depressions or 'general gluts' (and general booms) are possible, and the contraction of credit plays a key role in them.
(Steve Keen, Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor Dethroned?, Palgrave Macmillan, 2011, p. 220, I underlined.)
Thus the entire discussion of "hoarding" is misappropriated, and using it becomes a Straw Man argument against Keynes. The focus should instead be on how the monetary system actually works, and forgetting what the pure theorist would declare.
Seriously, dude, you should start reading stuff that reaches beyond (or even challenges) your political identity. Once I started doing this myself, the world actually has started to make more sense.
no subject
I've read neither Keynes nor Rallo, but Keen, him I've read, and Yves Smith. Smith was the first to point out that Keynes' TGT was complex enough that far too many economists read nothing more than the crib notes on the book and called themselves experts. Some of these experts later took their very, very abridged and even bastardized versions of Keynes and got jobs in government. Not a good mix, as it turned out, and as I think we would agree. What's been called "statist" is largely policy named for Keynes, but which has very little relationship with what Keynes actually wrote or discussed.
Keen pointed out one very troubling re-reading (bastardization) of Keynes; Hicks' IS-LM. It isn't Keynesian at frickin' all. It is, rather, a micro-economic tool banged with a mallet until it kinda sorta fit into Keynes' work, but only that portion of Keynes that the bastardizers created. It simply doesn't work as a macro-econ tool, according to Keen.
So what do I read in your linked review? "As a plus, at the end of the book, Rallo also provides a critique of the IS-LM model developed by John Hicks and Franco Modigliani which formalized Keynes's theory and is still taught at universities around the world."
So, to Austrians, is the word "formalize" synonymous with "bastardize" and "corrupt?" I call bullshit. Hicks is as truly Keynesian as Hayek is Marxist.
Rallo's criticism of Keynes further falls flat on his discussion defending Say's Law. Yes, according once again to Keen, ". . . in several ways Keynes obscured what Say actually meant." (Keen, p. 210.) Keen therefore quotes Say's Law directly and demonstrates in Debunking Economics why Keynes was more right than Say. Both Say and (later) Walras missed a key ingredient that Keynes noticed, but sadly did not develop explicitly enough for others to understand before his death:
Thus the entire discussion of "hoarding" is misappropriated, and using it becomes a Straw Man argument against Keynes. The focus should instead be on how the monetary system actually works, and forgetting what the pure theorist would declare.
Seriously, dude, you should start reading stuff that reaches beyond (or even challenges) your political identity. Once I started doing this myself, the world actually has started to make more sense.
Start with Keen's book.