Content uploaded by William Darity
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by William Darity
Content may be subject to copyright.
Keynes' Political Philosophy: The Gesell Connection
Abstract
Karl Marx perhaps the most astute student of economic doctrine, once made the famous and apposite observation that in substantial passages of "The Wealth of Nations" Adam Smith "was very copiously infected with the conceptions of the Physiocrats." In parallel fashion this paper agues that in substantial portions of "The General Theory," J. M. Keynes was a mere Gesellist, particularly but not uniquely, in his expressions of political philosophy vis-a-vis the relationship between state and economy.
Supplementary resource (1)
... 1 For an insightful discussion of Keynes's political economy see Dillard (1946;1948) and Darity (1995). 2 It must be stressed that Minsky (1996, p. 364) acknowledged that his political thinking was inspired by Henry Simon's political economy and his idea that the major goal of economic policy must not be narrowly economic. ...
... 4 This insight depicts Gesell's influence on Keynes's social and political philosophy (see e.g. Dillard, 1942;1946;Darity, 1995;Argitis, 2008Argitis, -2009. In The Natural Economic Order Gesell (1934) demonstrated his vision of socio-economic reforms. ...
... Toda a teoria de Keynes é de combate à escassez relativa de moeda (liquidez) e bens de capital. Ver tambémDarity (1995). ...
Há quase um século, Keynes ([1936] 1996) anotou que “o futuro terá mais a aprender do espírito de Gesell que do de Marx. O leitor que consultar o prefácio de The Natural Economic Order poderá apreciar o valor moral de Gesell. É nesse prefácio, no meu entender, que se pode encontrar a resposta ao marxismo.” (Keynes [1936] 1996, p.
326). Afinal, o que aprender do espírito do economista alemão Silvio Gesell hoje? A partir
dessa pergunta, este artigo compara os fundamentos teóricos de Keynes e Marx, principalmente em relação ao fenômeno do dinheiro e dos juros, para compreendermos melhor o elogio de Keynes à resposta ao marxismo de Gesell.
... In Say's view, if some goods did not sell, it was because "many people bought less because they earned less" (Say [1814(Say [ ] 2006. Demand was constrained by the amount of successful sales (Clower andLeijonhufvud [1973] 1981;Jonsson 1999;Béraud and Numa 2018a). Say thus recognized that the failure to produce (or the failure of factor owners to sell their services) must affect the demand for products, because that demand was financed out of earned income. ...
Since the publication of the General Theory, generations of economists have been led to believe that Say was Keynes’s ultimate nemesis. By means of textual and contextual analysis, we show that Keynes and Say held similar views on several key issues such as the possibility of aggregate-demand deficiency, the role of money in the economy, and government intervention. Our conclusion is that there are enough similarities to call into question the idea that Keynes’s views were antithetical to Say’s. The irony is that Keynes was not aware of these similarities. Our study sheds new light on the interpretation of Keynes’s work and on his criticism of classical political economy. Moreover, it suggests that some policy implications of demand-side and supply-side frameworks overlap. Finally, the study underlines the importance of a thorough analysis of the primary sources to fully grasp the substance of Say’s message.
... In Say's view, if some goods did not sell, it was because "many people bought less because they earned less" (Say [1814(Say [ ] 2006. Demand was constrained by the amount of successful sales (Clower andLeijonhufvud [1973] 1981;Jonsson 1999;Béraud and Numa 2018a). Say thus recognized that the failure to produce (or the failure of factor owners to sell their services) must affect the demand for products, because that demand was financed out of earned income. ...
Since the publication of Keynes’s General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, generations of economists have been led to believe that Say was Keynes’s ultimate nemesis. By means of textual and contextual analysis, we show that Keynes and Say held similar views on several key issues, such as the possibility of aggregate-demand deficiency, the role of money in the economy, and government intervention. Our conclusion is that there are enough similarities to call into question the idea that Keynes’s views were antithetical to Say’s. The irony is that Keynes was not aware of these similarities. Our study sheds new light on the interpretation of Keynes’s work and on his criticism of classical political economy. Moreover, it suggests that some policy implications of demand-side and supply-side frameworks overlap. Finally, the study underlines the importance of a thorough analysis of the primary sources to fully grasp the substance of Say’s message.
This chapter is an SRP-type but also a discursive analysis of the literary jewel embedded in Chapter 24 of The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (GT 1936), relating his reflection on the aftermath of a nation’s achievement of full employment. This book is acclaimed as the text that exposes the creation of macroeconomics (see Chapter 1), but its aspects also dealt with here highlight the new transition of Keynes’s thought from pure economics to the innovation of social and political stances. This last chapter is more philosophical as it lively depicts the road to human emancipation, leaving money concerns and prejudices aside. Going back to economics, ‘The general theory of employment (1937),’ as a further clarification of his notion of uncertainty, and the reception of GT are outlined in the appendices of this chapter.
This chapter reconsiders the significance of the debate between Gesell and Marxists, and why Gesell’s concept has been accepted under financialization. It is believed that Gesell was one of the originators of modern local currency. Moreover, his concepts of anarchy are well accepted. In particular, these concepts are money-capital theory and individual anarchist socialism or “market-centered socialism.” The concepts involve a criticism of the Marxist capital theory. This chapter revisits the capital theory debate between Gesell and Marx. It reviews Gesell’s understanding of Marx’s theory of capital in his most controversial works, Natural Economic Order (1920, 4th ed.) and Die Ausbeutung, ihre Ursachen und ihre Bekämpfung [Exploitation, its Causes and its Struggle] (1922).
When Carl Menger published his work Principles of Economics in 1871, he surprised everyone with his brilliance and ability to reconsider basic concepts of economics. His new vision of ideas such as utility, value, and prices turned out to be truly masterful and served to construct the foundations for later studies carried out by the Austrian School of Economics. Nonetheless, these concepts and definitions have sometimes been corrupted by the strong influen-ce of other schools of economics that have had a greater capacity to impose their ideas and to shape current mainstream economics. The current paper seeks to rescue the basic concepts devised by Menger, explaining the why and the validity of his original content. In order to correct errors of interpretation and to facilitate precise communication, not only examples for clear understan-ding will be given but also new complementary contributions will be offered. Key Words: Austrian School, Political Economy, utility, value, prices. JEL Classification: B25, D01, D46. Resumen: Cuando Carl Menger publicó su obra Principios de Economía Políti-ca en el año 1871, sorprendió con su brillantez y su capacidad para replan-tearse los conceptos básicos que conforman la economía. Su nueva visión so-bre ideas como la utilidad, el valor o los precios, resultó ser verdaderamente magistral, y sirvió para poner las bases de todos los estudios posteriores lleva-dos a cabo por la Escuela Austriaca de Economía. Sin embargo, dichos con-ceptos y definiciones se han visto en ocasiones adulterados por la fuerte in-fluencia de otras escuelas de economía que han tenido más capacidad para imponer sus ideas y para formar el mainstream económico actual. El presente trabajo se propone rescatar aquellos conceptos básicos elaborados por Men-ger, explicando el porqué y la validez de su contenido original; utilizando para ello, no sólo ejemplos que mejoren su comprensión, sino, también, nuevas aportaciones complementarias, al objeto de corregir errores de interpretación y facilitar su correcta transmisión. Palabras Clave: Escuela Austriaca, Economía Política, utilidad, valor, precios. Clasificación JEL: B25, D01, D46.
Some seriously misunderstood issues arise in three paragraphs in the last chapter of Keynes’s General Theory concerning the relationship between his theory and orthodox theory. That these passages permit a form of theoretical reconciliation is a view shared by prominent commentators of opposing persuasions. Joan Robinson and John Eatwell strongly criticised Keynes for inconsistency and for opening the door to neoclassical elements that undermine his theorising, while Paul Samuelson made Keynes’s comments the foundation of his textbook neoclassical synthesis. The reconciliation view, however, is based on hasty non-contextual readings and is mistaken. More careful analysis leads to three conclusions: neither internal inconsistency nor neoclassical appeasement exists; Keynes’s paragraphs are aligned with the theoretical positions previously advanced in the General Theory; and what is actually deployed is a complementarity view relating his macro-theory to one particular part of orthodox micro-theory. Rejecting the dominant view, however, does not remove the issue of the absence in Keynes’s work of an adequately exposited micro-theory to accompany his macro-theory.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.