Is the Market a Test of Truth and Beauty?

Ȁȅȇ Partʺ: Economics

academic world and did not gain major influence in the policy arena until

after the war. Ļose policy ideas may well have been beneficial in the short

run, but their long-run harmfulness started becoming evident in theȀȈȅǿs,

and more so in theȀȈȆǿs.

Why, even today, after so much academic dissection of Keynesian

ideas and so much sorry experience with their results in practice, does

the Keynes of theGeneral Ļeoryremain for many a fascinating and even

heroic figure? Ļe disorganisation, obscurities, and contradictions of the

book, together with its apparent profundity and novelty, actually keep

drawing attention to it.ȆWriting inȀȈȃȅ, Paul Samuelson found it

not unlikely that future historians of economic thought will conclude

that the very obscurity and polemical character of theGeneral Ļeory

ultimately served to maximize its long-run influence. (WoodȀȈȇȂ, vol.ŕŕ:

p.ȀȈȂ)

Different economists can read their own favourite ideas into theGen-
eral Ļeory. Left-wingers, delighted to learn that no mechanism exists to
keep saving and investment equal at full employment, can use that sup-
posed fundamental flaw as one more stick to beat the capitalist system
with. Right-wing Keynesians (e.g., PolanyiȀȈȃȇ) rejoice that an easy repair
will preserve and strengthen the system.
James Schlesinger (ȀȈȄȅ, in WoodȀȈȇȂ, vol.ŕŕ: p.ȁȇȀ) suggested that
what makes Keynes so satisfying is not his theoretical structure but his
“emotional attractiveness.” For many economists whose views were shaped
by the events of theȀȈȂǿs, he “represents the Proper Attitude Toward
Social Problems.” For them, the symbolic Keynes will retain his present
position of veneration, for he is the continuing embodiment of the Dreams
of Ļeir Youth—the reforming fervor of ancient days.

ōŜŜŞōŕşōŘ

Ļe discussions, research, and attitudes evoked by theGeneral Ļeoryoffer

much to admire. Even as propaganda for a short-run policy stance, the

book may have had merit (as I said above, with heavy qualifications). But

does it deserve lasting admiration as a scientific performance? Even from

ȆAlthough I am not directly acquainted with the James Joyce industry, I suspect that

Ulyssesand theGeneral Ļeoryare alike in offering employment for academic labourers of

a certain kind. My own admittedly lame excuse is that I have never written on Keynes

except by invitation.