Re: NYTimes on Skidelsky's Keynes

["Per Gunnar Berglund" <pgberglund@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul Davidson wrote:
> Some may be interested in Robert Skidelsky's response to Sylvia Nassar's
> review of his third volume.  Skidelsky wrote to me that it was curious
that
> Nasar thought that Britain was ruined by socialism, which is exactly what
> Reagan said.

Per says:
Yes, I was taken aback by that ideologically biased remark. My understanding
is that Britain's underperformance in terms of growth (relative to other
OECD countries) in the post-war era resulted chiefly from the severe
balance-of-payments constraints the country faced, with an underdimensioned
export industry and large foreign debt.

Paul wrote:
> Skidelsky also indicated that the point is not that
> Britain had a much smaller economy than the US after WWII (this was
already
> true in 1900) but that the war wrecked its commercial and financial
position.
> In fact, Robert did not think this wrecking could have been completely
avoided
> no matter what avoided, but it was his judgment that the Americans drove a
> hard bargain. Skidelsky felt, however, that he had identified too much
with
> Keynes's own patriotic feelings to make this part of his argument
acceptable
> to an American audience.

Per says:
Sounds very likely. Thanks for conveying Skidelsky's comments to us.

Best,
Per

_____________________________________________
Per Gunnar Berglund
CEPA    80 Fifth Avenue, 5th floor    New York, NY 10011
Tel: (212)229-5901, ext.327    Fax: (212)229-5903