Ann Pettifor: 14th February 2009
John Maynard Keynes must be a mysterious figure to today’s students of economics. They must hear much talk of him, and wonder who on earth he could be?
I drifted into such thoughts on a visit to Cambridge this week to hear a friend, Geoff Tily give a seminar on Keynes – to a very small group – at Robinson College. There I met a University of Cambridge Economics lecturer who told me that the University does not teach Keynesian economics. The reason for this is that students are not examined on Keynesian economics.
And so students remain mystified. As do I.
Just as the student at the LSE who was told she couldn’t write her PhD on the money supply, Ann.
The reason? “That’s not capitalism!”
In other words, that’s the difference between myths and mystification of economists v de-
mystfication of self-taught thinkers!
Sighingly yours,
Sabine
Organiser, Forum for Stable Currencies
http://tinyurl.com/666rwd
Shocking for me.
In my country all that happens happens mainly through government
intervention in any way imaginable.
Therefore Keynesian economics is one of the core types of economics which we are presented with as
introduction to the subject.
But now that I dwell furthur into it. The support of keynesian system of economics is falling and I wonder whether
the current crisis will get my teachers to rethink their monetarist/noninterventionist lecturing
Pingback: Tax Research UK / My del.icio.us bookmarks for February 16th
Pingback: Keynes no longer taught at Cambridge?
Pingback: My del.icio.us bookmarks for February 16th | called2account
That is the best news I have heard in a long time. Viva von Mises! Viva Hayek!
-From the ravings of the Psychomancer
You are joking surely? How can you study economics and not look at Keynes?
Maybe we should
get his books and burn them just to be sure that his crazy ideas are never read again?!
Worstall’s contribution is not helpful, as the responses on his own blog indicate. Surely Ann is suggesting that what is taught as Keynes
(Keynesianism) bears very little resemblance to Keynes’s actual theories and writings. And that this is true even in Cambridge. Who could
disagree?
Certainly the writings of Dasgupta, Dornbusch and Mankiw may offer a useful guide to ‘Keynesianism’, but they offer no guide to
Keynes. Mankiw has even issued a disclaimer: ‘If New Keynesian economics is not a true representation of Keynes’s views, then so much the worse
for Keynes’ (‘The Reincarnation of Keynesian Economics’, European
Economic Review, 36 (2–3), April 1992, p. 560).
Yet it is to Keynes not
Mankiw that policymakers are now turning.
Keynes, like Marx, should certainly be studied. Not as theory, but rather as important figures in economic history.
It’s hard to find your page in google. I found it on 20 spot, you
should build quality backlinks , it will help you to get
more visitors. I know how to help you, just search in google –
k2 seo tips