To note a rare recurrent error of our host: the Republicans as "the party of the economic past, of those who have something to lose and fear change". No. They are the party of masculinism, racism, and ressentiment. They want to ensure that Others lose more than they do, and don't care about what they lose in the process. They welcome transformative loss and destruction, not stasis.
'The 20th century transformation of the word “economy” to mean not household (or public) stewardship of resources, but rather frugality...'
Ahem. In Marlowe's Faust, Dr Faustus says, 'Bid Onkaymeon [sp?] farewell,' referring the Greek 'On kai me on', meaning 'being and not being': the kind of thing that philosophers have worried over from the earliest times. An early edition (the first, I think) corrected this to the simple and understandable and wrong 'Bid Economy farewell'. Or so I have read. I pondered this for a time till I realized that Economy here meant Frugality, to which Faustus could bid farewell now that he had Mephistopheles working for him. Hence, not just a 20th century corruption.
[All of this subject to correction by those who know literary history better than I.]
I think you have explained this before, but I still do not get what's necessary and what's contingent on (what?)
Is euthanasia (E)and somewhat comprehensive socialization (SCSI)of investment necessary to maintain full employment or for something else? I can see that SCSI could be achieved with high taxes and low interest rates (but would investors consider this euthanasia?) i.e. tight fiscal and loose monetary policy, but is it the only way? What if the high taxes are high consumption taxes and most of the S=I gets done in the private sector? The central bank makes Say's Law work in practice even if not in theory? Or is E+SCSI considered to be politically necessary to stave or revolution?
"corruption by luxury and performance" - was it not Keynes who founded the Cambridge Arts Theatre? And my recollection is that he supplied champagne to the patrons at a subsidized price.
Still, I note that it is Smith, not Keynes, whom Robin claims was influenced by Rousseau; he is drawing an analogy, not claiming direct influence. Then why bring it up? Well there is certainly an echo of Rousseau's artificiality of performance in Keynes' beauty contest. Perhaps Keynes, whom you, a practical man, believe exempt from Rousseau's influence was nevertheless the slave of some defunct philosopher.
To note a rare recurrent error of our host: the Republicans as "the party of the economic past, of those who have something to lose and fear change". No. They are the party of masculinism, racism, and ressentiment. They want to ensure that Others lose more than they do, and don't care about what they lose in the process. They welcome transformative loss and destruction, not stasis.
In re: J M Keynes
'The 20th century transformation of the word “economy” to mean not household (or public) stewardship of resources, but rather frugality...'
Ahem. In Marlowe's Faust, Dr Faustus says, 'Bid Onkaymeon [sp?] farewell,' referring the Greek 'On kai me on', meaning 'being and not being': the kind of thing that philosophers have worried over from the earliest times. An early edition (the first, I think) corrected this to the simple and understandable and wrong 'Bid Economy farewell'. Or so I have read. I pondered this for a time till I realized that Economy here meant Frugality, to which Faustus could bid farewell now that he had Mephistopheles working for him. Hence, not just a 20th century corruption.
[All of this subject to correction by those who know literary history better than I.]
I think you have explained this before, but I still do not get what's necessary and what's contingent on (what?)
Is euthanasia (E)and somewhat comprehensive socialization (SCSI)of investment necessary to maintain full employment or for something else? I can see that SCSI could be achieved with high taxes and low interest rates (but would investors consider this euthanasia?) i.e. tight fiscal and loose monetary policy, but is it the only way? What if the high taxes are high consumption taxes and most of the S=I gets done in the private sector? The central bank makes Say's Law work in practice even if not in theory? Or is E+SCSI considered to be politically necessary to stave or revolution?
"corruption by luxury and performance" - was it not Keynes who founded the Cambridge Arts Theatre? And my recollection is that he supplied champagne to the patrons at a subsidized price.
Still, I note that it is Smith, not Keynes, whom Robin claims was influenced by Rousseau; he is drawing an analogy, not claiming direct influence. Then why bring it up? Well there is certainly an echo of Rousseau's artificiality of performance in Keynes' beauty contest. Perhaps Keynes, whom you, a practical man, believe exempt from Rousseau's influence was nevertheless the slave of some defunct philosopher.