What do you think?
Tutti gli errori di Keynes Perché gli stati continuano a creare inflazione, bolle speculative e crisi finanziarie
Con stile semplice e piano Hunter Lewis rilegge criticamente John Maynard Keynes, mettendone a fuoco tutti i limiti. Come scrive Francesco Forte nella sua prefazione, «la rivoluzione keynesiana ha dato luogo a risultati spesso disastrosamente negativi, come si può constatare con i consigli dati agli esperti, che se ne sono avvalsi prima e durante la grande crisi iniziata alla fine del 2008».
444 pages, Paperback
First published September 16, 2009
About the author
Hunter Lewis
49 books19 followersRenowned investor and author Hunter Lewis has written eight books on the financial issues of America, providing real solutions to turn the economy around.
He is the former CEO of Cambridge Associates, a global investment firm he co-founded after graduating from Harvard University. The company’s clients represent three-quarters of higher education endowment assets in the United States as well as other nonprofit groups and high net worth individuals. Lewis has also served on boards and committees of 15 leading nonprofit organizations, including environmental, teaching, research and cultural groups, as well as the World Bank. Lewis runs the successful watchdog website AgainstCronyCapitalism.org with fellow writer and political consultant Nick Sorrentino.
Reviewers across the globe have noted Lewis’ unique economic insights, and he’s shared his expert opinion on national television programs including CBS’ Money Matters and NBC’s TODAY. His writings have appeared in the New York Times, The Times of London, Washington Post, The Atlantic, Forbes.com and other media. The Charlottesville, Va. author’s newest book releases, “Free Prices Now!: Fixing the Economy
by Abolishing the Fed” and “Crony Capitalism in America: 2008-2012,” hit bookshelves on
September 1, 2013.
He is the former CEO of Cambridge Associates, a global investment firm he co-founded after graduating from Harvard University. The company’s clients represent three-quarters of higher education endowment assets in the United States as well as other nonprofit groups and high net worth individuals. Lewis has also served on boards and committees of 15 leading nonprofit organizations, including environmental, teaching, research and cultural groups, as well as the World Bank. Lewis runs the successful watchdog website AgainstCronyCapitalism.org with fellow writer and political consultant Nick Sorrentino.
Reviewers across the globe have noted Lewis’ unique economic insights, and he’s shared his expert opinion on national television programs including CBS’ Money Matters and NBC’s TODAY. His writings have appeared in the New York Times, The Times of London, Washington Post, The Atlantic, Forbes.com and other media. The Charlottesville, Va. author’s newest book releases, “Free Prices Now!: Fixing the Economy
by Abolishing the Fed” and “Crony Capitalism in America: 2008-2012,” hit bookshelves on
September 1, 2013.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
October 11, 2009
Where did Keynes go wrong? Just about everywhere. Lewis smelts Keynes obtuse and often contradictory works to arrive at fundamental Keynsian nuggets. Not surprisingly they are generally base metals, composed of intuition, ego, and a contrarian desire to surprise.
So why do governments keep falling for it? Why were the Bush, and especially the Obama administrations fully stocked with Keynsians prescribing policies that are nearly the opposite of what is required for recovery?
This is the one area that Lewis doesn't cover in great detail. But this is understandable, as he had his hands full just covering Keynes. But he hints at it. Keynsian philosophy allows governments to disavow socialist, marxist and fascist motives while still pursuing policies which consolidate power into government hands. It also makes politicians jobs relatively painless, at least in the short term.
-- the answer to government debt is to increase it.
-- if low interest rates are encouraging bad debt, do even more to
lower interest rates.
-- if the people won't spend, the government can do it for them so as
to stimulate the economy.
-- spending is the way to wealth.
-- printing more money is a form of savings.
-- the government is the wisest investor over the long term (really
funny)
In other words, Keynesiansism gives government a cover of legitimacy to do those corrupt things that government has a natural tendency to do. It fuels their arrogance that they understand how to set prices and control the economy.
Lewis summs it up well, saying of these politicians, they presumably haven't "the slightest inkling that they are jamming long, fat sticks into the spokes of the market wheel, and then loudly exclaiming that the wheel is not moving and in urgent need of government repair"
So why do governments keep falling for it? Why were the Bush, and especially the Obama administrations fully stocked with Keynsians prescribing policies that are nearly the opposite of what is required for recovery?
This is the one area that Lewis doesn't cover in great detail. But this is understandable, as he had his hands full just covering Keynes. But he hints at it. Keynsian philosophy allows governments to disavow socialist, marxist and fascist motives while still pursuing policies which consolidate power into government hands. It also makes politicians jobs relatively painless, at least in the short term.
-- the answer to government debt is to increase it.
-- if low interest rates are encouraging bad debt, do even more to
lower interest rates.
-- if the people won't spend, the government can do it for them so as
to stimulate the economy.
-- spending is the way to wealth.
-- printing more money is a form of savings.
-- the government is the wisest investor over the long term (really
funny)
In other words, Keynesiansism gives government a cover of legitimacy to do those corrupt things that government has a natural tendency to do. It fuels their arrogance that they understand how to set prices and control the economy.
Lewis summs it up well, saying of these politicians, they presumably haven't "the slightest inkling that they are jamming long, fat sticks into the spokes of the market wheel, and then loudly exclaiming that the wheel is not moving and in urgent need of government repair"
March 5, 2010
If you want to see a detailed teardown of Keynes' theories, or if you just want to learn about Keynesianism (a flawed economic theory that both Democrat and Republican politicians generally subscribe to, including the current and recent presidents) this is a good book. The book contains Keynes' General Theory and examines it section by section. It's solid, if not inspired. It also has a decent debunking of the idea that any government act helped end the Great Depression (in fact, government acts quite likely made it worse; compare the depression of 1920-21).
It seems that Keynes coasted on a successful publication (Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1919), being a glib speaker, and then saying and writing what governments wanted to hear: that they should interfere in economies. His General Theory, which this work examines in detail, is rife with contradictions, hunches, inanities, and misdirection. It is essentially Machiavelli's Prince for economics, but without cogent argument. Lewis concludes: "Let us hope that we do not have to wait too long for Keynes to join Mao and Marx and other faded and false utopians. To turn away from false utopias does not mean giving up on entirely attainable ends and ideals. We can have a stable economy, one built on truthful prices and profits."
One can certainly see the statist appeal of an economist that tells politicians to print more money, spend more money, confiscate money as they see fit, and otherwise interfere with the economy and free market. It's not entirely surprising that his theories are popular, not subject to much scrutiny, and don't stand up to such examination.
It seems that Keynes coasted on a successful publication (Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1919), being a glib speaker, and then saying and writing what governments wanted to hear: that they should interfere in economies. His General Theory, which this work examines in detail, is rife with contradictions, hunches, inanities, and misdirection. It is essentially Machiavelli's Prince for economics, but without cogent argument. Lewis concludes: "Let us hope that we do not have to wait too long for Keynes to join Mao and Marx and other faded and false utopians. To turn away from false utopias does not mean giving up on entirely attainable ends and ideals. We can have a stable economy, one built on truthful prices and profits."
One can certainly see the statist appeal of an economist that tells politicians to print more money, spend more money, confiscate money as they see fit, and otherwise interfere with the economy and free market. It's not entirely surprising that his theories are popular, not subject to much scrutiny, and don't stand up to such examination.
August 28, 2026
Before understanding what Keynesian economics means, we need to understand the backdrop to his theory. When the Great Depression shook the world in 1929, John Maynard Keynes lost his fortune in the market, and he moved on to formulate his theory that, during such economic downturns, the government should spend more to stimulate the economy. What does it mean “to stimulate the economy”? It simply means that the government should print more money and lend that same money, by which the government borrows from itself, to allocate capital to what it feels is important, and then wait for the economy to grow. Sounds like a Ponzi scheme, but the world post-Bretton Woods has been running on this Ponzi scheme.
Keynes believed that private capital would never get invested during economic downturns because the “animal spirits” of entrepreneurs are cautious, and this prolongs the recession. This made him believe that “in the long run, we are all dead.” Hence, he formulated his theory that the government should borrow limitlessly and engage in spending, thereby creating several jobs through the “multiplier effect” and he believed these jobs would create savings.
Keynes advocated low interest rates. One of the most flawed assumptions about human nature is that humans will wait forever to consume what they value. If there is anything we can learn from human history, it is that humans will definitely borrow to fulfil their consumption, as recorded from Roman times to the famous “pound of flesh” in Shakespearean literature. However, when you keep interest rates so low, consumption eventually turns into gambling. This has been the history of financial euphoria ever since banks started lending at lower interest rates, right from the bubble of 1929 to Black Friday, the dot-com bubble, and the 2008 financial crisis. At artificially low interest rates, capital gets mal-invested into things that are completely unnecessary and have less social value, as you can see in India, where people who sell “organic ice creams” and develop apps for “street dog safety” are calling themselves entrepreneurs, while the revenues never match the interest that has to be paid.
Next, Keynes completely missed the “human” element of economics. Even if these people are deploying their own capital, higher interest rates would encourage them to keep that capital in a bank that pays a higher interest rate and lends at even higher interest rates. For instance, if the bank is paying me 8% interest on $100,000, why would I want to become an “organic ice cream” entrepreneur who makes a $1 margin on each unit sold? And if the bank lends that $100,000 to someone who is innovating a dishwashing machine that can wash and dry dishes in under 12 minutes, which restaurants and hotels desperately need, why wouldn’t the risk of lending be lower, considering there is demand for that service?
Another problem is that Keynes missed an important factor such as “liquidity” and “money supply.” If you keep printing money and increase the money supply, the "Cantillon effect" eventually leads to inflation because, if $1,000 was previously changing hands for $1,000 worth of goods and services, now $2,000 in circulation has to chase the same $1,000 worth of goods and services, unless another $1,000 worth of goods and services is produced. This is a phenomenon we are experiencing in real life, where assets with fixed or limited supply continue to go up in price.
Keynes was also against the gold standard because he thought it limited the borrowing capacity of the government. Keynes was greatly confused about what gold meant. Gold is not a standard anymore, it is not even money anymore. Still, people buy it as insurance because they experience the inflation and debasement of currency subconsciously. When you restrict governments from borrowing endlessly, you are also forcing them to produce something so they can trade that for a standard currency. Keynes wanted a standard detached from gold so that money could be printed endlessly. As the US dollar achieved this status, countries that are import-dependent but export deficient have had to live with perpetual inflation. Some of the world’s greatest innovations happened under the gold standard because of predictable money values and low inflation, which eventually determined interest rates.
Keynes’s ideas were put into practice by many countries. A living example is Japan, with a debt-to-GDP ratio of around 250%, whose inflation reached a point where people stopped consuming altogether, yet kept producing what the world wanted at artificially low interest rates, while the differentials in currency barely pushed their savings to a point where Keynes believed consumption would kick in. It never did. To explain this simply, Japan’s inflation exceeded its growth, so people kept saving, private investment never kicked in, and prolonged stagnation took over, while other global companies took over technology and innovation.
Even worse, Keynes advocated for full employment. Apart from the quantity theory of money, one of the defining moments in disproving Keynesian theory was the Natural Rate of Unemployment (NRU), developed by Milton Friedman. Keynes dreamt of a world where lower interest rates and government spending would mean lower unemployment. However, the Phillips curve argued that there is an inverse relationship between employment and inflation, that is, the lower the unemployment rate, the higher the inflation, and vice versa. What Friedman proved was that there is an inflection point where the curve becomes stable, that is, there is some level of inflation relative to the unemployment rate. This standard is measured by central banks today when setting interest rates, although with an upgrade to NAIRU. In simple words, if the government keeps pumping money to increase aggregate demand, inflation picks up, and people would simply save their money in “safe havens” instead of investing it. Exactly what happened in Japan.
Keynesian theories run deep into bureaucratic thinking, government machinery, politicians, and, unfortunately, even academia. Governments across the world keep printing money and spending it like there is no tomorrow. Even the most “capitalistic” country, the US, resorted to Keynesian policies under Alan Greenspan during the dot-com bubble and Ben Bernanke during the 2008 crisis by pumping in new money to bail out companies that went bankrupt, without allowing the recession to run its course, prices to adjust, and capital to be allocated in the manner that was naturally needed.
The result is $5,000-per-ounce gold today.
Keynes believed that private capital would never get invested during economic downturns because the “animal spirits” of entrepreneurs are cautious, and this prolongs the recession. This made him believe that “in the long run, we are all dead.” Hence, he formulated his theory that the government should borrow limitlessly and engage in spending, thereby creating several jobs through the “multiplier effect” and he believed these jobs would create savings.
Keynes advocated low interest rates. One of the most flawed assumptions about human nature is that humans will wait forever to consume what they value. If there is anything we can learn from human history, it is that humans will definitely borrow to fulfil their consumption, as recorded from Roman times to the famous “pound of flesh” in Shakespearean literature. However, when you keep interest rates so low, consumption eventually turns into gambling. This has been the history of financial euphoria ever since banks started lending at lower interest rates, right from the bubble of 1929 to Black Friday, the dot-com bubble, and the 2008 financial crisis. At artificially low interest rates, capital gets mal-invested into things that are completely unnecessary and have less social value, as you can see in India, where people who sell “organic ice creams” and develop apps for “street dog safety” are calling themselves entrepreneurs, while the revenues never match the interest that has to be paid.
Next, Keynes completely missed the “human” element of economics. Even if these people are deploying their own capital, higher interest rates would encourage them to keep that capital in a bank that pays a higher interest rate and lends at even higher interest rates. For instance, if the bank is paying me 8% interest on $100,000, why would I want to become an “organic ice cream” entrepreneur who makes a $1 margin on each unit sold? And if the bank lends that $100,000 to someone who is innovating a dishwashing machine that can wash and dry dishes in under 12 minutes, which restaurants and hotels desperately need, why wouldn’t the risk of lending be lower, considering there is demand for that service?
Another problem is that Keynes missed an important factor such as “liquidity” and “money supply.” If you keep printing money and increase the money supply, the "Cantillon effect" eventually leads to inflation because, if $1,000 was previously changing hands for $1,000 worth of goods and services, now $2,000 in circulation has to chase the same $1,000 worth of goods and services, unless another $1,000 worth of goods and services is produced. This is a phenomenon we are experiencing in real life, where assets with fixed or limited supply continue to go up in price.
Keynes was also against the gold standard because he thought it limited the borrowing capacity of the government. Keynes was greatly confused about what gold meant. Gold is not a standard anymore, it is not even money anymore. Still, people buy it as insurance because they experience the inflation and debasement of currency subconsciously. When you restrict governments from borrowing endlessly, you are also forcing them to produce something so they can trade that for a standard currency. Keynes wanted a standard detached from gold so that money could be printed endlessly. As the US dollar achieved this status, countries that are import-dependent but export deficient have had to live with perpetual inflation. Some of the world’s greatest innovations happened under the gold standard because of predictable money values and low inflation, which eventually determined interest rates.
Keynes’s ideas were put into practice by many countries. A living example is Japan, with a debt-to-GDP ratio of around 250%, whose inflation reached a point where people stopped consuming altogether, yet kept producing what the world wanted at artificially low interest rates, while the differentials in currency barely pushed their savings to a point where Keynes believed consumption would kick in. It never did. To explain this simply, Japan’s inflation exceeded its growth, so people kept saving, private investment never kicked in, and prolonged stagnation took over, while other global companies took over technology and innovation.
Even worse, Keynes advocated for full employment. Apart from the quantity theory of money, one of the defining moments in disproving Keynesian theory was the Natural Rate of Unemployment (NRU), developed by Milton Friedman. Keynes dreamt of a world where lower interest rates and government spending would mean lower unemployment. However, the Phillips curve argued that there is an inverse relationship between employment and inflation, that is, the lower the unemployment rate, the higher the inflation, and vice versa. What Friedman proved was that there is an inflection point where the curve becomes stable, that is, there is some level of inflation relative to the unemployment rate. This standard is measured by central banks today when setting interest rates, although with an upgrade to NAIRU. In simple words, if the government keeps pumping money to increase aggregate demand, inflation picks up, and people would simply save their money in “safe havens” instead of investing it. Exactly what happened in Japan.
Keynesian theories run deep into bureaucratic thinking, government machinery, politicians, and, unfortunately, even academia. Governments across the world keep printing money and spending it like there is no tomorrow. Even the most “capitalistic” country, the US, resorted to Keynesian policies under Alan Greenspan during the dot-com bubble and Ben Bernanke during the 2008 crisis by pumping in new money to bail out companies that went bankrupt, without allowing the recession to run its course, prices to adjust, and capital to be allocated in the manner that was naturally needed.
The result is $5,000-per-ounce gold today.
September 5, 2018
While Keynes was far from perfect, Lewis is even further off with his theories. The first five chapters of the book detailing Keynes thinking and picking apart Keynes' theories are acceptable. Keynes had a lot of faults in his thinking and reading Keynes's 'The General Theory' is very cumbersome. So Lewis' criticisms, in that regard, are well reasoned. However, in the following chapters, Lewis goes on to describe his own economic theories, which are just as wrong.
First, Lewis doesn't understand how money is created. He keeps referencing the Fed's 'money printing'. However, the Fed can't print money. It can increase bank reserves with member banks, but that doesn't mean that money will be put into the economic system. Only the US Treasury can 'print money.' But Lewis makes no distinction between the two. So Lewis doesn't understand the very basics of how the US economy functions. If you are criticising one of the most widely regarded economists, this would be a good point to understand.
Second, like most modern-day economists, Lewis says that 'money printing' will create inflation. But the government prints money every day. You can go to Washington DC and visit the US Treasury where they actually print the dollars. In fact, for an economy to function, you need the government to print dollars and then tax those dollars so that they have value. None of this means that the dollar will be worthless or that inflation will take over. Lewis wrote the book in 2011 and none of the things Lewis worried about happened. The US dollar hasn't collapsed. The US hasn't experienced out of control inflation. In fact, the US has been fighting a deflationary trend since 2008.
I'll end with number three, but I could go on. Third, Lewis seems to think that the economy would magically balance out if the government just let it be. He argues that prices would adjust to a new normal level and demand would come back once you reduced everyone's wages to the 'market rate.' However, this belies the major problem we experienced in 2008. The economy cannot deal with rapidly declining prices. In 2008, the banking system collapsed because home values declined and the banks didn't have enough capital to meet capital requirements. The more prices fall, the more capital the banks need. That is until they finally have to shut their doors because no investor will pour money down a bottomless pit. Lewis would argue that capital levels should be 100%. However, that again would cause an endless spiral of asset prices as the economy de-levers. Unless the government (with a flexible balance sheet) steps in to arrest the decline, the entire economy will spiral down until no one can find a job. Which is exactly what happened during the Great Depression. And if you think allowing an endless spiral of deflation to 'balance' the economy is a better solution than 'printing money' then you don't understand anything about how society works because that's the kind of desperation that leads to dictators, world wars and real destruction. Unlike an economic recession, those are the problems from which society can't bounce back.
So I would skip this book and instead read "Understanding Modern Money" or "Soft Currency Economics II." You'll learn a lot more about economics that you didn't know from those texts.
First, Lewis doesn't understand how money is created. He keeps referencing the Fed's 'money printing'. However, the Fed can't print money. It can increase bank reserves with member banks, but that doesn't mean that money will be put into the economic system. Only the US Treasury can 'print money.' But Lewis makes no distinction between the two. So Lewis doesn't understand the very basics of how the US economy functions. If you are criticising one of the most widely regarded economists, this would be a good point to understand.
Second, like most modern-day economists, Lewis says that 'money printing' will create inflation. But the government prints money every day. You can go to Washington DC and visit the US Treasury where they actually print the dollars. In fact, for an economy to function, you need the government to print dollars and then tax those dollars so that they have value. None of this means that the dollar will be worthless or that inflation will take over. Lewis wrote the book in 2011 and none of the things Lewis worried about happened. The US dollar hasn't collapsed. The US hasn't experienced out of control inflation. In fact, the US has been fighting a deflationary trend since 2008.
I'll end with number three, but I could go on. Third, Lewis seems to think that the economy would magically balance out if the government just let it be. He argues that prices would adjust to a new normal level and demand would come back once you reduced everyone's wages to the 'market rate.' However, this belies the major problem we experienced in 2008. The economy cannot deal with rapidly declining prices. In 2008, the banking system collapsed because home values declined and the banks didn't have enough capital to meet capital requirements. The more prices fall, the more capital the banks need. That is until they finally have to shut their doors because no investor will pour money down a bottomless pit. Lewis would argue that capital levels should be 100%. However, that again would cause an endless spiral of asset prices as the economy de-levers. Unless the government (with a flexible balance sheet) steps in to arrest the decline, the entire economy will spiral down until no one can find a job. Which is exactly what happened during the Great Depression. And if you think allowing an endless spiral of deflation to 'balance' the economy is a better solution than 'printing money' then you don't understand anything about how society works because that's the kind of desperation that leads to dictators, world wars and real destruction. Unlike an economic recession, those are the problems from which society can't bounce back.
So I would skip this book and instead read "Understanding Modern Money" or "Soft Currency Economics II." You'll learn a lot more about economics that you didn't know from those texts.
July 12, 2012
This may not be the best criticism on Keynes, but it is one of the more complete deconstructions of the master, and to be perfectly honest this is the first book I've read that thouroughly discusses the General Theory (since as Paul Krugman points out most people like me can't handle pure Keynes which is probably the most accurate thing I've ever read by Krugman). Although I have been introduced to criticisms of the Paradox of Thrift, Circular Flow and Demand Aggregates I definitely got more information in all those areas from this book. In a sense I think Hunter Lewis accomplishes the goal of taking Hazlitt's Failure of the New Economics and kicks it up a notch bringing in explanations of how the new deregulation led to a continuation of these same policies, and even with changes in Tax Policy and Bank Regulation (just picking two bugaboos of the pundit class) fail to overcome over fifty years of Keynesian style policies. One of the biggest eye openers I had was regarding Keynes belief in a zero interest rate policy, something that the Federal Reserve continues to pursue and is probably one of the bigger contributers to the previous recession (i.e. a combination of cheap money and a desire to beat the returns on low interest rate bonds through the use of financial instruments like CDSs). Although Keynes had some valid points, I think his legacy is one of a return to Mercantilist style policies and man on the street economics that have permiated both the mainstream media and mainstream political class.
It is probably obvious from this review I've only taken intro Macro and Micro economics so don't have a real academics view of the economy. I've also never worked in the financial industry so it is entirely possible that my opinion goes with what I think is logical and not what I see is the counter-intuitive Keynesian view.
It is probably obvious from this review I've only taken intro Macro and Micro economics so don't have a real academics view of the economy. I've also never worked in the financial industry so it is entirely possible that my opinion goes with what I think is logical and not what I see is the counter-intuitive Keynesian view.
May 9, 2013
Loved this book. Well written and sourced. If you are not of the opinion that Keynes was a horrible "economist" then of course you will hate it. Why even bother honestly? However, if read with an open mind, this book gives great historical information with, yes, biased information but well sourced unlike many other texts that simply go on and on about merely opinion with no evidence whatsoever.
July 24, 2011
I don't know if I can really comment on the information in this book, but I hated the way the book was written so I stopped reading it.
The chapters where he "explains" what Keynes had said or believed were not really chapters in my mind, they were outlines. He would list a point and put a short blurb or quote there to "explain" Keynes. This went on for pages and pages. It came off as confusing and disjointed.
He seemed to do as little as he could to clearly explain anything. And as if this wasn't annoying enough he threw in a chapter that went over Keynes questionable moral values. While this was more interesting than the outlined data points that preceded it, I really wasn't sure how this was relevant in a discussion of economics.
I never actually got to his critiques of Keynes. Maybe he was right, maybe he was wrong, the only question this book answers is how bad of a writer Hunter Lewis is.
The chapters where he "explains" what Keynes had said or believed were not really chapters in my mind, they were outlines. He would list a point and put a short blurb or quote there to "explain" Keynes. This went on for pages and pages. It came off as confusing and disjointed.
He seemed to do as little as he could to clearly explain anything. And as if this wasn't annoying enough he threw in a chapter that went over Keynes questionable moral values. While this was more interesting than the outlined data points that preceded it, I really wasn't sure how this was relevant in a discussion of economics.
I never actually got to his critiques of Keynes. Maybe he was right, maybe he was wrong, the only question this book answers is how bad of a writer Hunter Lewis is.
May 9, 2018
An eye opener
This book describes Keynesianism in detail, then carefully and precisely destroys it, leaving a pile of smoking ruins. A must read.
This book describes Keynesianism in detail, then carefully and precisely destroys it, leaving a pile of smoking ruins. A must read.
January 30, 2013
good arguments, but it's a little light on evidence. granted, it's hard to find evidence of non-keynesian policies in the last 80 years, but i found it ironic that he was accusing keynes of abstract arguments with no backing and he sought to refute those ideas...with largely abstract arguments with little backing.
but, all in all, a good primer on the 'common sense' arguments against keynes.
but, all in all, a good primer on the 'common sense' arguments against keynes.
October 1, 2021
A great read for thoes interested in economic philosophy and the interplay between macroeconomics,markets, politics.Lewis has organized his thoughts well.However, I found some of the assumptions too far reaching and lacking in first principle thinking.
July 19, 2020
no giant insight here, things are explained fairly simply and sometimes the author encounters errors himself. For example, on page 93, he discusses how lowering interest rates through printing new money leads to inflation since no additional goods are produced. However, lowering interest rates also spurs investment and increases production, therefore, supply does increase. This by no means indicates Keynes was right. The truthful answer comes from Jonathan Heathcote at the Minneapolis Fed who stated, "Inflation and what causes it are not very well understood." Ultimately, Hayek was still the most correct that macroeconomics simply doesn't make sense. Unfortunately, attempting to discredit Keynes's theories using the metric system he created (macroeconomics) is difficult. Another error is his assertion "A slowing economy would in turn reduce the demand for imports, which would bring exports and imports back into balance." (244) In reality, this would add to the imbalance since imports tend to be cheaper than domestic goods.
September 6, 2020
Lewis's arguments are well-founded and generally quite sound; part two is devoted to Keynes's theories, a lot of quotations are used and it becomes clear that Lewis has done a lot of research. In part three, these arguments are refuted, however in doing Keynes's arguments are repeated again, making the first section seem mostly redundant, and at times felt like I was reading the same thing over again. The arguments used by Lewis to refute Keynes were good points but they always felt very unsubstantaited, never really using any neoclassical innovations or relying on anything too complex, making this a rather simple read. I would say the book is only informative enough for casual conversation. Section three begins to dabble in American politics and I really question Lewis's objectivity, I believe his arguments are still sound but I very much question his leaning.
Overall, if I had to sum up this read, I would say good arguments but a severe lack of depth and rigour.
Overall, if I had to sum up this read, I would say good arguments but a severe lack of depth and rigour.
July 27, 2022
If you are someone who has been subjected to Keynes' work and are looking for a complete and comprehensive list of (major) things he got wrong, this is a great book.
There are a lot of mistakes to get through – which is the purpose of the second part of the book.
I'm sure I will be returning to specific sections of the book later down the line.
There are a lot of mistakes to get through – which is the purpose of the second part of the book.
I'm sure I will be returning to specific sections of the book later down the line.
August 17, 2018
Pseudointellectualism.
December 1, 2024
Not skilled in economic theory but enjoyed the clarity of this book.
May 3, 2012
Lewis tells us that other reader's are familar with the work of Keynes but has not read the source material. The remedy is choppy everything Keynes has said, diagnose one sentence at a time, and bring a long meandering commentary to this. Worst still Lewis, repeats a lot of the same sentences, and ideas in different chapters. Then in later chapters he goes into topics of how Keynes "writes" and how he "speaks". What the hell does it have to do with "Where Keynes went wrong AND Why world governments Keep Crreating Inflation, Bubbles and Busts".
Here's what I took away from the novel.
1. Lewis doesn't like Keynes ideas at all, and it's not clear as a reader that he even understand's "Keynes's ideas"
3. Editing can make or break a book
Here's what I took away from the novel.
1. Lewis doesn't like Keynes ideas at all, and it's not clear as a reader that he even understand's "Keynes's ideas"
3. Editing can make or break a book
October 8, 2011
This book was limited in scope to the title. It really was a critique of just Keynes' economic ideas. It's apparent that modern-day "Keynesians" aren't as Keynesian as Keynes was. It's surprising, though, what obvious logical gaps, assumptions, and unproved assertions from Keynes still pervade economic thinking today. A very informative read!
January 20, 2013
Worth reading as a good introduction to the flip side of standard economic fare and introduced many of the players with opposite views for future reading and reference. Wouldn't say the book is a completely objective view, but the author does a good job of trying to keep things balanced. I would have liked to have seen some more on alternatives.
February 9, 2010
The book itself wasn't amazing, but it was extremely enlightening. I would much rather read Hunter Lewis' critique of Keynes than try to wade through the endless fallacies and contradictions of Keynes' own work.
October 28, 2013
An excellent, well thought out, easy to read analysis of Keynes weakness as a economic theorietician. He is popular with the lib politicians because he agressively advocates ever increasing power to the political sector.
June 2, 2011
So far a must read at all Universities!!
May 18, 2014
A good review of the main arguments made by Keynes, and the counterarguments to them. Written in plain language.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews