Re: Keynes and the BP 2 Part.

["Esteban Perez" <eperez@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

You wrote:
How do these passages contradict my interpretation of "the classical
medicine" which identifies it with the role played in automatic
adjustment by "deep undercurrents" and confirm what I take to be your's
that "classical medicine" means the classical "dichotomy" and the
associated idea that domestic wage and price deflation can be brought
about with no effect on real values? Specifically, the quote from "The
Balance of Payments of the US" is found in a context where Keynes is
expressing optimism that the US will not attempt to interfere via
"import tariffs and export subsidies" to prevent the "classical
medicine," i.e. the "deep undercurrents" that are making the US into a
"high-living, high-cost country," from working to help bring about
equilbrium in the US balance of payments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keynes reference of the US ¨on its way to becoming a high cost country¨ Vol XXVII  is directly related in his last piece to wages (p.485) which he had indicated before are ¨already two and a half times the British level¨. His solution are import controls, exchange rate variation and implicitly decline in domestic absorption, which by the way are some of the same type of adjustments he recommended in CW Vol XXV.
--------------------------------------------------
You wrote:
The "classical doctrine¨ isn't among those that Keynes regarded as one of
"the truths of great significance" contained in the "classical
teaching." He rejected it.
----------------------------------------------
He rejected it in 1936 and 1942. In an earlier post I quoted from Keynes notes (1946): classical doctrine+exchange variations+import controls. There is the evidence. The letter to Hicks is merely a referral to what he understood to be the classical doctrine in 1937. In the classical teaching as evidenced by Marshall, Wicksell or Fisher there is a clear dichotomy reflected even in the separation between the theory of value and that of prices. Neutrality follows (Marshall, 1926 for example).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You wrote:

Are you implicitly assuming here that Keynes rejected the view that
there are "objective" grounds for belief - that he was
"anti-foundationalist"? He didn't do this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer is no.