Re: Worth Reading: Ben Bolch on Macro

["John M. Legge" <jlegge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John G

I think that you should have spotted the massive con-trick in Bolch's
article.  The first third is an ad hominem attack on Keynes; the next third
is a denunciation of the use of statistics and aggregates; and the final
third is the claim that STATISTICS AND AGGREGATES (i.e., economic growth
data) "prove" that a particular set of policies, viz. extreme laissez faire,
are better than all possible alternatives.

In the middle we had a little "depressions are good for you" propaganda, a
theory that, if Rob Parenteau is right, we are about to see tested on a
global scale.

JML

-----Original Message-----
From: John Gelles <jjgelles@xxxxxxxx>
To: POST-KEYNESIAN THOUGHT <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, 20 August 1998 8:47
Subject: Worth Reading: Ben Bolch on Macro


> As the most published amateur on PKT I do have
> a small following:  People who have read little of
> the required literature (and some pros who have
> read it all), who enjoy getting to the meat of the
> problems of unemployment, poverty, etc.
>
> One of the primary pains in my rear here used to
> be Hayekians.  They have a different literature,
> albeit they share some key authors.  They love
> unemployment and poverty -- for other people.
>
> Lo and behold I've been taken in by one who
> may be one of theirs.  But not to laugh or despair.
> Ben Block in "The Independent Review", Spring
> 1998, whose article "Is Macroeconomics Believable"
> may possibly be read at the following URL
> http://www.independent.org/tii/media/pdf/TIR24_bolch.pdf
> has written the most readable account of what goes
> on here that one can imagine.
>
> The article is extremely inconclusive -- you read it
> and it clarifies PKT's last five years of proceedings --
> but it comes from what I think may be Hayek's
> side.  It fails utterly to provide Gelles' solutions to
> unemployment and poverty (the individual estate
> account, guaranteed job loans, no-tax strategies,
> etc.), but that is understandable.  It is worth reading
> to put into comprehensible form all the Keynesian
> literature, econometric effort, and anecdotal stuff
> that originally appeared here in less organized
> form.
>
> I hope we can make it the basis of an informal
> seminar.  I have it in magazine form and on my
> hard drive in Adobe form.  I hope you too can
> get hold of it.  If the URL above does not work,
> try              http://www.independent.org
> and futz around on its pages for a back issue of
> The Independent Review.
>
> There is something to be said for reading a hostile
> explanation of your Keynesian thoughts.  Such
> a piece, if well written, gets right to the heart of
> matters that amateurs like myself need to under-
> stand what some of our academics mean when
> they write.
>
> If anyone out there knows of this "Journal of
> Political Economy", which may be a front for
> Friedmanism, please say so.  The article on the
> core of macroeconomics asks the right questions.
> If we offer the right answers -- which Bloch does
> not, our use of it will be, in my opinion, more
> in keeping with out mission than anything I've
> yet seen in our seminars or proceedings.
>
> John Gelles
>