Re: NYTimes on Skidelsky's Keynes

["Sean Reilly" <seanjreilly@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't know how many of the people on this list heard the interview with
Skidelsky that was on NPR this afternoon, but I found it very interesting.
He commented about how the British were severely burdened after the war,
when the U.S. suddenly cut off the Lend/Lease Program, hence the need for
Keynes to spend two arduous months in D.C. negotiating on Britain's behalf.
It seemed that Skidelsky was arguing that the US turned off the spigot, as
it were, to Britain intentionally after the war in order to gain the upper
hand in terms of economic standing/power.  There was no time for Britain to
readjust.  One must remember that the two nations were economic rivals prior
to the war, despite their kinship during the war.  Britain's economy shrank
substantially as a consequence of the U.S. cutting them off from the
supplies that they were reliant on the U.S. for during the war.
Sean

----- Original Message -----
From: "Per Gunnar Berglund" <pgberglund@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "PKT" <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: NYTimes on Skidelsky's Keynes


>
> 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
>
>