This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Business (Rated Start-Class) BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles Business and economics portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's priority scale. WikiProject Economics (Rated Start-Class) EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Business and economics portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's priority scale. WikiProject Investment (Rated Start-Class) InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject InvestmentInvestment articles v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. WikiProject Finance (Rated Start-Class) FinanceWikipedia:WikiProject FinanceTemplate:WikiProject FinanceFinance articles Business and economics portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-Class, Mid-importance) PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject PoliticsPolitics articles Politics portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

[edit] Geithner and Summers are Keynesians?

I was rather struck by the section which reads, "Keynesian thinking was reflected in U.S. President Barack Obama's appointing Lawrence Summers, Timothy F. Geithner and Christina Romer to principal economic positions in his administration." I have no idea what sort of economic theory Romer espouses, but I find it highly suspicious that Summers and Geithner are identified as Keynesians. What, because they advocate an economic stimulus package they're now Keynesian? This seems dubious, particularly inasmuch as it disregards the positions of both men during the period this Wikipedia entry conveniently describes as an "era of pragmatism" but may be more accurately described, at least in the U.S., as a continuation of monetarism. Geithner a Keynesian? The man was the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York before becoming Treasury Secretary! (And an acolyte of Greenspan and Bob Rubin). That's a quintessentially monetarist position! And Larry Summers? The man who wrote upon the death of Milton Friedman that, "any honest Democrat will admit that we are now all Friedmanites." A Keynesian? This sort of whitewash of the Obama administration and its apparatchiks really makes parts of this article suspect. BasilSeal (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Your points are well made. And, if you want to put the article up for an Article for deletion, Afd that is probably not a bad idea and would probably receive support from multiple editors. Just a suggestion. skip sievert (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment BasilSeal. Early this year Summer's bio page on here had him categroised as a Keynesian. A case could be made that at least by American standards he's seen the Keynesian light, despite as you say long being a prominent free market advocate. I wouldnt categorise Roma and Geitherner as Keynesians either, though I have high hopes about the Secretary, he's a good listener and there are many sound folk in the Treasury to help counter the propoganda he heard from his wall stree pals. Anyway on balance I agree the sentence was misleading, so have removed it. PS - please make any changes direct to the article yourself if you wish. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What does seen the Keynesian light mean? High hopes about the Secretary? The article probably could be Afd'd as it is really almost an advertisement and iffy about its value. skip sievert (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree this articles a little light on criticism, I plan to add some more once I've finished digesting the some the more prominent sources covering the resurgence. Or you're welcome to yourself, VisionThing put some good links you could use over at Talk:John_Maynard_Keynes#The_Keynesian_Resurgence. But please try and seek concensus before altering the tone of the lede. As you rightly say NPOV is are no 1 priority here, and that means the lede should reflect the balance of sources. The sources dont talk about some resurgence of interests, sources like FT, the worlds preminent financial broadsheet, refers to a stunning resurgence. Ok that was almost a year ago, but you still have equally empthatic language in an article less than 2 weeks old (Washington Post ):

We need a good source suggesting the extent of the resurgence has been exagerated before we tone down the lede - else we are violating NPOV. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is more of an essay or blog in my opinion and is a disservice because it seems one sided and even the copy was/is jilted or jiggered funny.

Keynes was not quite as skeptical of the efficacy of monetary policy as many of his followers have become. He wrote that the effect of increasing the quantity of money is "not nugatory," and that "the terms on which the monetary authority will change the quantity of money enters as a real determinant into the economic scheme." But by the 1960s, Keynes's apostles were minimizing the role of monetary policy and exaggerating the apparently magical properties of government borrowing. here is one suggestion for critque here and more info. maybe here. skip sievert (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Although a staunch Keynesian, I can tell the "Criticism" section has been written by strong proponents of Keynesian policies who have had only a half-hearted shot at neutrality. The first paragraph is irrelevant as it does not refer to criticism: it even mentions a few worthy objectives which might or might not be achieved by Keynesian policies (like a shift to a 'green economy').

"It is questioned by commentators on the left whether the Keynesian resurgence has been sufficiently strong" is not criticism of the resurgence, just as criticism on an article called "Cars" would not start by saying that perhaps there are not enough cars around. Similar case with the mention of Germany.

The rest of the criticism is more spot-on, but needs to be expanded and revamped. It feels as though the author did not really understand the points made by the opposing side, and has just gathered snippets from media coverage. "Various other technical reasons" is unacceptable in an encyclopedia.

Hope someone is more productive than myself and makes these changes! Good luck, and keep developing a promising article. 23.40 GMT, 01 Feb 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.157.249 (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the good wishes 157.249 , and you are not wrong about the section being written by a Keynes Fan! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see a more robust Criticism section as well, since its hard to tell what logic could lead people to claim more tax cuts are the solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.8.47 (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll be exspanding and sharpening the Criticism section in the next few weeks if no one else does - i was hopeing for the sake of balance an editor with free market sympatheis would step up! FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've added the best sources of the free market point of view I know. Unlike the Monetarists / New Keynesians, the Austrian School is well placed to attack Keynes as at least their theory has not been tried and found wanting. Despite what I've said on talk pages about the free market I very much believe that there are still sincere and intelligent folk who believe the free market is in the peoples best interests and it would be great if any pro free market editors want to exspand or re-write the criticism section. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I work for an architecture and engineering firm in Missouri. Some of my projects are receiving money from the United States Stimulus Package. That money is being administered by MO-DOT. Before the money became available Missouri was read and willing to fun our projects. After the money was made available the Department of Transportation decided to KEEP ITS OWN MONEY and spend the Federal money INSTEAD. Then we had to change a lot of our general requirements and waste time and money filling out additional paperwork. The end result was that the project was delayed six months. So rather than adding money to the economy the stimulus package only delayed the spending of certain amounts of money for six months while the states saved the money they were going to spend anyway! Furthermore, all the money that was "given" to the states was first taken from the states because a higher proportion of taxes now goes to the Federal government than the state governments. 100 years ago this was reversed, with strong State governments and a limited federal government, the larger proportion of taxation went to the states. The reason that no economists of the Austrian School control policy is that these positions are controlled by the government and the Austrian School doesn't think there is a considerable role for government in the economy, thus they don't get appointed to these positions. Can anyone explain how the country gets out of debt by borrowing more and why we cannot simply re-set the global economy seeing that every country is in debt to the point to the point of bankruptcy to every other country. And according to Keynes once money is worthless and the system of food distribution in America collapses and states are not food sovereign and agriculturally independent how will we avoid starvation? I am confused.--Rclose (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] comparison to early New Deal versus World War II economic mobilization

The entry 2008-2009 Keynesian resurgence fits well, IMO, the facts rapidly unfolding around the world. These facts include the widely held belief that the early New Deal was trial and error not Keynesian - and the only real test of Keynesian power to produce and pay for output was during the period of economic mobilization that gave WW II: money matched to output (not financial debt); heavily emphasized private savings to reduce demand (and reduce concern that high taxes may or may not be in store for a nation's grand-children - depending on productivity potentials and revolutions in technology); criminal process to prevent hoarding and the like; wage and price control, and rationing; and effective long term interest management.

All these tools were necessary to minimize after war inflation - which, nevertheless, on account of pent up demand and ending of controls, unleashed an acceptable high level of post war pricing.

Today's debate universally recognizes that trial and error New Deal-ism asks for considerable time to go from error to new trial. Economic mobilization does not ask for very much time at all. The fact that economic mobilization was the only timely sure cure ever found for deflation (the admitted current condition) is often glossed over.

It is therefore logically necessary for this criticism of the Keynesian resurgence to emphasize: the missing savings aspect of the success from 1942-1946; the missing very low taxes on the middle class in that period (the shift of the tax burden from the rich to the middle class occurred in the post war period, after the Kennedy tax cut); the financial cooperation between the central bank and Treasury which appears to be returning without an agreement or legal basis; the acceptance of government spending in place of private spending - which is presently not accepted - and which is the only way to win wars against real enemies and against global environmental collapse; and the creation of confidence - that all parties (Keynesian and non-Keynesian) cry for - based on patriotism more than fortunate optimism.

It may be that only the President has the power to mobilize the economy. But the intellectual recognition of the power of Keynesian theory has the duty to admit its only proof came when its purpose was clear and its grip was steady.

John, thanks for your interesting perspective and your contribution to the main article. I wholeheartedly agree with you that it would be good to see policies to tackle the issue of debt in general and in particular to avoid additional tax burden for future generations. That said, your section reads more like an essay than an encyclopaedia entry. Also as you seem to admit you're advocating something that no significant sources have been talking about in the media. I'm tagging your entry as original research, with a view to removing it to the talk page in the next week or so. Of course it can stay if you can find references to support that what you're saying is a POV shared by significant sources (even if just a minority). Lots of commentators are advising folk to pay off their personal debt if they're able, but Im not aware of anyone suggesting that we ought to further dampen consumer demand and encourage savings. Im not too sure if that's what you meant, but it read that way. Its actually the opposite of what Keynesian economists are advocating . Successful Keynesian policy as implemented in the 50s and 60s discouraged excessive saving and purposefully stimulated demand. Im not sure how one can argue that measures appropriate during WWII and the immediate aftermath apply to our present situation. Sorry if I have misunderstood what you are saying! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Feyd,

Thank you for your accurate appraisal of current Keynesian pro-private-spending strategies. They are, in by view, similar to "guns and butter" models during the Vietnam war. They will, in my view, risk too high inflation too soon -- and ought to be challenged now. The absence of calls for economic mobilization now to rapidly deliver what Obama promised is sad. The current congressional criticism of Obama's recovery plan has raised all the issues BUT NONE OF THE SOLUTIONS I have introduced into this article. If you remove it to the discussion page, it may not attract the help it needs to be brought to the attention of the world's currently floundering experts on how you substitute planned government spending for consumer and profit-seeking spending when the fate of humanity hangs in the balance. I know Wikipedia is young and is learning to accomplish its purposes. Fortunately for poor people, Wikipedia's fate is also at risk if we drift away from effective communication of knowledge to pursuit of the unrelated ideal of avoiding anything new. There is nothing original about the way economic mobilization looks at supply, demand, cost accounting, and the power of Keynesian thought to influence monetary systems of production. The knowledge is seventy years old and older. Its application is a matter of logic not research or opinion.

Signed: John Gelles

[edit] introducing new article

The entry for the Keynesian Resurgence began as a sub-section of the influence section of the main John Maynard Keynes article. Several editors contributed to it and more than likely there will be many more relevant developments as the year unfolds. Rather than unbalance the main bio article I thought it might be nice to have a separate article so editors are more free to help us capture this very important phenomena. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious

I have not yet heard the term "Keynesian Resurgence" or "Keynesian Revival". The bold introductory paragraph needs support from reliable sources.

I'm especially surprised to hear about a "Resurgence" because to the best of my knowledge variations on Keynesian economics have always been the main stream of macroeconomic thinking ever since Keynes. Keynesian economics has been challenged by a number of competing schools: Monetarism in the 1960s-70s; New Classical Macroeconomics in the 1980s; and Real Business Cycle Theory in the 1990s. You might argue that in the late 1970s or early 1980s Keynesianism was really out of fashion and Monetarism was somewhat more influential. But versions of Keynesianism really never disappeared and never ceased to be influential. A good history of all these recent economic debates is given by Michael Woodford in 'Revolution and evolution in 20th century macroeconomics'. His overall point is that Keynesianism has been the predominant viewpoint in macroeconomics ever since the Great Depression, though it has repeatedly absorbed insights from competing schools of thought.

To say that Keynesianism came back in 2008 especially shows ignorance of New Keynesian economics. The development of New Keynesian DSGE models of the macroeconomy has probably been the main area of macroeconomic research for the last ten years, and these are now widely accepted and used by policy makers (especially in central banks). The main reason newspaper editors think something is new in 2008 is that we are facing a really deep recession (possibly depression) for the first time in decades. The standard Keynesian prescription in that sort of circumstance is massive fiscal policy stimulus. The reason it's happening now is not because Keynesianism just returned, it's because mainstream Keynesian policy requires this kind of action in the circumstances we face today. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello there Rinconsoliao, that’s an interesting perspective.I’ll grant Keynesianism never really went away, in that neo-Classical economists used some of Keynes work to make their new synthesis. I understand what you’re saying about New Keynesian economics, and I’ve skimmed through the Woodford presentation. If this article was written from an academic perspective I’d agree the implication of a recent paradigm shift would be highly dubious.

This article is written with a view to capture changes in policy making, and to a lesser extent there practical implications. The coupling between economics as a discipline with government policy making is far looser than many academics appreciate - influences much closer to actual decision makers are the key global institutions like the IMF, World Bank and influential normative media like the FT and Economist ( Ravenhill 2005) . As you imply independent central banks do indeed tend to make decisions more in line with current reccomnendations from accademia, and the very fact they have the independence to do so is one of the remaining victories of Monetarism. As per the article and various references, senior individuals in those orgs are not merely advising different policies to suit different conditions, they are at least partially admitted their previous ideological commitment to free market was mistaken. I haven’t yet added links for Green span admitting his mistakes or u-turn by IMF boss - okay I am titleing those a bit more loosely than i would on a main article page, lol.

To appreciate the sea change in policy making terms, consider how here in Britain the recession of the early 80s and the early 90s were largely allowed to run their course with no substantial fiscal intervention, despite the jobless total exceeding 3 million in both cases (a lot higher than it is now) - okay you could argue that and granted there was no comparable financial dimension. But what about the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis  ?- they were literally crying out for a Keynesian style solution but it was denied partly as the dominant view among decision makers was strongly pro free market – not the Keynesian / neo classical syntheses that’s consistently been taught at most universities. .

A difference between those earlier recessions and today, is that during early - mid 2008 folk like myself were hard at work having face to face meetings and written communication with senior politicians up to and including Mr Brown himself, who as you know was leading the world wide response in the crucial period after October. The ability to influence decision makers isnt a function of academic expertise as much being in the right place at the right time and the grace of the Holy Spirit. So though it might look like Im following newspaper writers, thats not really the case, Im just following wikki protocol. To see a blog post where I predicted the revival and the agency of Mr Brown before Keynes was being widely talked about just search for 'farewell to capitalism'.

Did you read the FT article which strongly implies in the first two paragraphs that the whole world is adopting Keynesian remedies, with only Germany having reservations ? I havent heard anyone else question the existence of a Keynesian revival, though as per criticism section many American politicians fear it isnt as strong as it needs to be, and here in Britain for example many MPs are rightly disappointed at the governments failure to Nationalise our troubled banks, with zero compensation to shareholder and a purge of senior management as was done in Norway in the 90s.

If you search for Keynesian revival / resurgence / renaissance there are hundreds of articles about the current phenomena, many are critical but none of the ones I’ve skimmed question the reality? I'll put a citation on the opening sentence as you requested. I hope you dont mind me removing your tags. With great respect there's nothing desperate about this article, the desperate ones are the rentier class who rue the now inevitable erosion of their wealth that will result from the elevation of prosperity for the disadvantaged and the long term relatively high (but managed) inflation that will result from the Keynesian Revival.

Sorry for going on so much, Im just not expecting to be online much these next few days so have tried hard to settle the discussion.

FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Just in case anyone still doubts there has been a Keynesian Resurgence in terms of Policy making, a good FT article to check out is titled The undeniable shift to Keynes and says:

FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Academia

With respect Rinconsoleao I again see nothing dubious about the claim. The paper you cited earlier, http://www.columbia.edu/~mw2230/macro20C.pdf , speaks about those few who opposed the neoclassical synthesis as 'Keynesian Zealots' It goes on to says

And also in arguments about the efficacy of fiscal policy:

So your own link supports the view that untill very recently main stream economics had moved very far from Keynes position as a result of the counter -revolutions it talks about, even if evolved forms of some of Keynes insights are retained. New Keynesian Economics is Keynesian economics in name only - I wouldnt have been confident in saying that a few months ago, but I've read many papers and talked to several prominent economists since then.

Now as for your claim that the NY article I just added doesnt make a comparision between the 2008 & 2009 meetings, please can I draw your attention to this passages

Clearly this time is refering to the 2009 meeting which took place immediatly before the article was published , whereas last time would be the 2008 annual meeting. I looked at a few of your edits after the last time we talked, and you clearly know what your stuff in economics, i though maybe you are even an economics professor or something like that. So Im confused as to why it looks like you might be objecting without even carefully reading the sources!

You are right about the NYT article. I read it too fast. My apologies. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that. I appreciate it. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The time to argue against Keynes would have been in early 2008 before the old pro free market concensus had been over turned. If were not for the harm free market fundamentalism has inflicted on millions of impoverished families, one would feel almost sorry for its advocates. (Im not saying youre a free market POV warrior Rinconsoleao , but Im confused about why you're objecting here)

Im sorry free marketeers - you're fighting a war, you've already lost.

Nonetheless, I still think the section on 'Academia' is a huge misrepresentation of the academic debate. It reads like original research, being basically a statement of opinion, and it seems to be an opinion based on reading newspapers instead of reading academic publications. It's just way too exaggerated and not at all sufficiently subtle. My understanding of recent academic literature is that the main points of Keynesian economics have always been the main stream of macroeconomic thinking, both for policy makers and for academics, with the possible exception of the late 1970s and early 1980s (when the world was suffering a hangover from the excessive faith in Keynesianism during the 1960s). As I understand Woodford's point, above, he is saying that the main Keynesian ideas have become so deeply embedded in mainstream macroeconomic thinking that they are now part of the consensus; and another theme of his paper is that the majority of Keynesians have accepted some criticisms of early Keynesian ideas.

For example, even today, many macroeconomists (even those who consider themselves Keynesians) would agree with Milton Friedman's point that activist fiscal policy is usually dangerous because it's hard to get spending bills fast and efficiently through the legislative process, so the stimulus against a recession often comes too late, when the economy is already beginning to expand, and therefore does more harm than good. (I think that's what 'the modern literature sides with the critics of Keynesianism' means.) Krugman has defended massive fiscal stimulus, not because Friedman was wrong, but because people now expect this crisis to be so deep and long-lived that a stimulus will still be needed some time into the future.

Likewise, even today, many macroeconomists (even those who consider themselves Keynesians) would agree that under normal circumstances, monetary policy is particularly important for stabilizing the economy. The reason governments are turning to activist fiscal policy is because central banks are already putting in the strongest monetary stimulus imaginable, and it's not yet enough.

So again, my point is that I don't think there has been a huge change in the academic point of view. Instead, there has been a massive crisis that has required the most aggressive policy response we have seen in decades, something many people had forgotten was even possible. And if there has been a big change in the academic point of view, it didn't come in 2008, but rather in the 1990s, as the New Keynesian theory developed.

Of course, some people think New Keynesianism isn't really Keynesianism. But to the best of my knowledge those people are still a fringe minority.--Rinconsoleao (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Rinconsoleao , as the crisis has got much of the general public interested in economics, articles covering recent events like this should perhaps be mostly referenced with sources readily accessible to the general reader not journals. Also perhaps you'd agree the quality press sometimes provides a better overview of recent events , all though granted they dont compare to the better journals for precision or accuracy about historical events once academics have had time to assimilate the relevant data? Still I'd agree that one ought not make sweeping statements about academia without being familiar with the journals, so certainly I can cite them for this discussion.

First thanks for your addition of the links to Monetarism, RBCT ect. I hope you dont mind if I add back the IPE link though as that supplies the general reader with a quicker overview on the key debate about the optimal level of government involvement?

Moving on to your point that many macroeconomists agree that under normal circumstances, monetary policy is particularly important for stabilizing the economy - I really cant agree with that.

Its now rather widely accepted that monetary policy was a key contributor to the current crises, both in the journals and the quality financial press. Essentially as the US CPI hadn't been significantly rising , Monetary theory led the FED to interpret that as a signal to keep interests rates at far too low for too long. The result from an asset price bubble. http://www.cepr.org/pubs/PolicyInsights/PolicyInsight23.pdf Its merely incidental that the obvious distress started in the sub-prime sector.

Of course everybody agrees that using the wrong monetary policy is a bad idea. In fact, Milton Friedman's explanation of the Great Depression is that it was caused by excessively tight monetary policy. Back in 2001 or so there was a huge debate among New Keynesian macroeconomists and policy makers about whether central banks should raise interest rates when asset prices (like stock prices or housing prices) are increasing unusually rapidly. Some thought it was a good idea, but others, particularly Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, argued that it was a bad idea. In hindsight, many people think they were wrong. But that is completely different from saying that we should now forget about monetary policy and concentrate on fiscal policy. On the contrary, most economists agree that aggressive monetary policy (including bank rescues by the world's central banks) is an absolutely central part of the required response to this crisis. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 08:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Even six months back I'd agree with you that many economists were still debating about Monetarism. But not anymore, certainly Im not aware of more than a handful from the journals or from forums busy with senior economists such as Vox or http://www.rgemonitor.com/euro-monitor . However there are those boldly speaking out against the failure of both Monetarism and "New Keynesian" economics: http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3210 .

You are right, 'there are those'. But Buiter's viewpoint appears very far from the consensus. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 08:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that until very recently it was only the fringe that seriously questioned the neo-classical / New Keynesian synthesis. However no sources I've looked at dispute that New Keynesian Economics did not favour fiscal intervention – and there’s not normally a qualification to say under normal circumstances such as for a down turn that’s predicted to be of short duration.

From a 2004 paper http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118595084/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Other papers you can read in their entirety without signing up: http://users.uoa.gr/~sdrakop/SJPE92.pdf and http://www.rep.org.br/pdf/36-7.pdf

And note the above two papers were written in the 90s and comment on New Keynesian Economics, a development that didn't move economics back towards Keyne's original ideas but further away!

Id suggest the Reformation section is supported by the sources, the NYT article clearly showing a massive shift in opinion. Certainly I can and will support it extensively from the journals , but before I do can you first find even a single current reliable source (last few months) that suggests a sizeable minority of academics still favour the monetary / new Keynesian consensus? I really dont think any such source exists and for us to start citing extensively from the journal would IMO be unnecessarily elitist and create a false impression that there is still a live debate on this issue?

In the Revival section Id already identified James Galbraith, as one of the key early influences on the resurgence, citing this reference http://utip.gov.utexas.edu/papers/CollapseofMonetarismdelivered.pdf which I hope you read as its my fave one for boldly highlighting the flaws of the new consensus without obscuring the point with too much subtle nuance. Very much a man after my own heart for the way he engineers big changes in Congress and so punches above his weight. Im pleased to say he's very much alive and in good health, or he was when we exchanged emails last month. Thanks for the point though, I'll add his first name to the new section in case someone doesnt read the whole article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes this final paragraph most certainly reads like original research. I get that same wikipedia-is-going-to-loose-its-credibility feeling I do every time I read a bad wiki page.

"With a few notable exceptions such as Robert Shiller and James Galbraith, the Keynesian resurgence was largely driven by policy makers rather than academic economists." Unsubstantiated, needs a citation.

"Until very recently mainstream economists have not generally favoured robust fiscal or counter cyclical policies." This is true, but we are talking about really bad recessions, not counter-cyclical policy. There are two issues. Most economists believe, and still do, that you use Monetary policy to fight the business cycle (or do nothing at all). They also believe in a hands off approach to most recessions. But when you're dealing with "the worst thing since the GD" and the interest rate is at 0% then it's time to dust off Keynes. This assertion is confirmed by all these citations, including the NYTs article: no one cared for Keynes style spending with recessions because it's usually a bad way to deal with the business cycle. Now Keynes is in vogue because this looks closer to the GD than a business cycle dip.

"While a school of thought known as New Keynesian economics has been widely taught at universities , that system had become so integrated with pro free market neo-classical influences that it largely rejected interventionist policy recommendations advocated by Keynes himself, and some economists consider the label 'Keynesian' to be a misnomer. [49]" Ok, but I don't see how this is relevant. We are (or at least should be) talking about a Keynesian resurgence--a resurgence in the idea that Keynesian style spending is applicable to this crisis--not any of the economic schools that are known to be largely based on Keynes. Most economists could agree with the idea that Keynes-style spending is applicable to the current crisis, but deny that they are New Keynesians or Neo-Keynesians.

The "resurgence" may well have been due to confusing the issue. No one surveyed economists and said, "If you had a 0% interest rate and near double-digit unemployment, and -6% growth, with a financial system in shambles, would you use government spending to prop up demand?" Who knows, I bet the majority of Economists in the IDEAS rankings would agree with that." What the NYT saw at the 2008 meeting was the answer to the question, "If you had a standard recession, would you resort to fiscal policy to solve the problem (thus resulting in crowding out)." and most economists do not agree with that. Either way, I could be wrong in all of this but what is clear is that we have a new section supported by the opinion of a NYTs reporter and Galbraith's opinion of the literature months after the crisis hit. Compare this to the intro paragraphs where several prominent Economists all over the spectrum (including Mankiw) are cited. And I'm pretty sure there are papers that analyze consensus out there. There must be a better way to make this shoddy argument stronger, if it is possible. --128.146.33.195 (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback 33.195 I agree the academia section isnt supported by the best possible references. You're welcome to improve it or even delete the entire section if you wish. I kind of feel its a fairly accurate reflection of reality though - with one source suggesting that practically minded economists broadly support the revival and another source suggesting that those orientated towards the cloister have carried on as before. There are indeed papers that assess the consensus but a few months back when I was interested in this topic one received mixed messages depending on who was writing them. Im no longer motivated enough to re-assess the literature as Im afraid. The resurgence seems to have already peaked, a few months back it seemed possible we could achieve a lasting shift in policy that would deliver universal prosperity, but now the forces who preferred the old status quo have rallied and thrust us dreamers aside. If you're saying there hasnt been a clear resurgence among academic economists I agree, the main point of this article was to track the shift in policy making. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Danger of inflation?

The article seems OK on a first glance. But what about the danger of inflation? No word! Economy should be a quantitative  science, and the question is, whether the present Keynesian policy of the states really suffices quantitatively, or whether the somewhat hesitating policy of Germany, exceptional as it looks, does not have serious quantitative reasons? In other words: do the states have enough money, to solve the problems (e.g., the car selling problems, will they be over next year?), or does one need another "new deal" which was succesful, but only after a decade? If the state does not have enough money (and the interest rates are already now on an historical depth) there is the danger that the money-printing machines will be working again, as Europe has experienced two times. - The article spreads optimism. Let us hope that this is relevant. - With regards, 87.160.125.51 (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections 125.51 and your thoughts on the article , they are much appreciated. Ive expanded the criticism so it mentions inflation, most likely other editors will further expand that section over the next few weeks, which might address any concerns you might have about the article being over optimistic.

Ive no doubt youre right these policies will cause at least modest inflation, although their will be determined efforts to stop inflation getting too high. From a Keynesian perspective , modest inflation is often an unavoidable price when you want to raise general prosperity and deliver close to full employment. It's a difficult concept, but the General Theory argues strongly that too much concentration of wealth is not good for the majority. Clearly inflation will hurt those who depend on interest from capital , and those who arent in a good position to achieve wage rises, but this can be mitigated by appropriate government action. Essentially we seen the pain as being clearly offset by the reduction in misery to the unemployed and the impoverished. In recent history even modest inflation could offset potential gains from fiscal stimulus due to the adverse affect on balance of payments – but this should be less of a problem now Keynesian policies are being pursued globally, and especially once the key global institutions adopt measures to penalise high trade surpluses , something Keynes had pushed for back in Bretton Woods.

Germany has a favourable balance of payments comparable to China and unlike the Chinese doesn’t depend on high growth to check underlying social problems. Im not exspecting them to act against the best interests of the planet in the long term, they'll come round soon! FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Neologism

This article refers to a 'Keynesian Resurgence' in capital letters, as if this were a widely-recognized phenomenon, and as if everybody agreed about what to call it. (I agree that there are big changes in economic policy being reported in the press, but until the phenomenon is given a widely-recognized name, Wikipedia should not invent one.) Is there a documented source for this name? This Wikipedia article should not be used to define a neologism. If 'Keynesian resurgence' is simply a description, rather than a name, then it should not be capitalized. If it's a phrase captured from some newspaper article, then it would be reasonable to say

 the press has spoken of a 'Keynesian resurgence' 

or something like that. But if the person who started this page was inventing a new term, then it's original research, and should be removed. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll change the second usage of the term to match the FT article title The undeniable shift to Keynes that's source no 1 ("resurgence of Keynesian " ) . I agree neither Keynesian Resurgence or Revival are terms one would find in a dictionary. Yet that this phenomena is real is now undeniable, and we need to have a label for it.

In other words, you are clearly admitting that the term was invented by a Wikipedia editor (maybe you). That is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy on original research and neologisms. This page is not remotely acceptable on Wikipedia until it is re-edited to avoid being a compilation of your original ideas. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 08:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please understand that I am not arguing that most of the article is wrong. I agree with much of the analysis on the page (though I strongly disagree with your summary of academic viewpoints). All I'm saying is that it is grossly inconsistent with Wiki policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an academic journal where new research is published. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

For example, I see that you have also created a page on the Keynesian revolution. It appears to be largely accurate, and it's much better than the mess on the Keynesian economics page. Since 'Keynesian revolution' is already a well-established term, and since the page is documented with verifiable published sources, that page appears completely appropriate to me. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If you'd made these points last year against the Resurgence when it was just a sub section on the main Keynes article I'd have to concede I was inventing a new term. However since then the sub section has been reproduced countless times on the Web, and quite possibly one of the FT journalists took the word Resurgence from the Keynes article. Im very sorry if I've broke any policies by using Wikki to influence events and make the shift to Keynes seem more a fait accompli than it really was, especially given the link between the media and what's decided at the frequent international conferences addressing the crises. Still that’s the past now, the best available sources now confirm a Keynesian resurgence has undeniably took place. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just made the change, I hope you agree the first use of the term Keynesian Resurgence is referring to the title of the article. It doesn’t necessarily imply the term is widely used. The phenomena has happened – that is undeniable , and we need a label for it. If you insist, we could change the first use of the phrase to "the phenomena that the Financial Times has reported as being a Resurgence of Keynesian policy making" - I cant think of a better formulation that strictly obeys the wording of the Wikki rules - but IMO that would be unnecessarily clumsy and ugly. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"This article refers to a 'Keynesian Resurgence' in capital letters, as if this were a widely-recognized phenomenon, and as if everybody agreed about what to call it." The phenomenon is widely recognized[1] [2] [3] [4], but there is no common name - the articles I just linked talk variously of a resurrection, comeback, and return. If 'resurgence' sounds too strong, 'revival' (already used in a section title) may be unobjectionable. Mporter (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the phenomenon exists. I'm just arguing that Wikipedia policy requires that Wikipedia should not invent the name for the phenomenon. And we should report interpretations from reliable publications-- we should not invent those interpretations ourselves, because that would be original research. I believe the article can be and should be rewritten in a way that removes original research. This does not require huge changes. Also, this is probably best understood as an article about current events. Many articles about current events include a disclaimer stating that the situation may change. Including that here would be appropriate. How big and important this change in macroeconomic thinking will appear some years down the line is not at all clear right now, in my opinion. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out Mporter! FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Lets try and achieve some clarity here Rinconsoleao. I didn't admit to an editor coining the term. It may be I was the first to use it in a prominent media to refer to the emerging phenomena, but I dont know that for sure. Wikki policies dont apply retrospectively as far as Im aware , and anyway I cant agree I was clearly violating them. When I first stated there would be a return to Keynesian thinking back in summer 08 ( no1 link on a google for “farewell to capitalism”) Id admit it would have been OR as it was based partly on private discussions with policy makers – however I didn’t post at the time on Wikki. When I first created the 'Keynesian Resurgence' section , prominent politicians like Alistair Darling had already been quoted in mainstream sources as talking about returning to Keynesian solutions. So yes the section was at that time borderline as supporting sources were much scarcer than they are now , but not really a clear violation! FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] revert 12 March 09

The numerous recent edits here made earlier today and yesterday, despite the excellent contributions by the editor in question on other articles, are bordering on the absurd. For example yesterday he / she claimed Id misrepensented a straightforward NY Times articles, and only when I clearly pointed out the relvent passage did the editor admit the accusation was entirely wrong.

Now to justify this change which falsely implies theres some doubt about fiscal stimuli being implemented, the editor says: "The fact that the press says it is a fact. The claim that it is true would be original research" Have a word with yourself Editor! Not only are the stimuli reported in the quality financial press like the FT and WSJ , theres been accademic studies of the size of the stimuli around the world, as per "global survey of stimuli" in the external links section. Id LOL, only the economic crises is already causing poverty, mental stress and even suicides which affect a great many families around the world. Clear information like this helps folk, this is clear both from my offline contacts and scores of web posts. Im confident a good admin would agree many of the recent justifications for the changes made are bordering on wikki lawyering, obscure this important subject and are contary to this mission of this fine encylopedia! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the fact that active fiscal policy is being implemented (on a massive and worldwide scale!!) My point is that interpreting this as a change in how economists or policy makers regard Keynesianism is an opinion. Therefore to make it into a documentable fact, we can say 'the press argues that policy makers are acting in a Keynesian way'. That is a fact, demonstrated by the excellent citations you have provided. Saying it is a renewal of Keynesianism is probably true, but it is nonetheless an opinion, and is therefore original research. Therefore I'm afraid I still feel the page is inappropriate Wiki-wise, and I will revert to my version (but including the additional source you have cited). --Rinconsoleao (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, two of the articles you have cited use the word "resurgence", but none of them talk about a "Keynesian Resurgence" as if it were an established term (or as if it deserved to be capitalized). So 'resurgence' needs to be treated as a description-- otherwise it remains a neologism. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree 'Keynesian Revival' would have been a better title, and for the first 3 weeks after creating the article I had a request to that end on this talk page ( I don't know how to rename articles myself). But now we're at a point where aggregators like Samepoint find over a thousand incidents for "Keynesian Resurgence" , many of which link or refer to this article. We'd be making things inconvenient for them by changing the name.

Granted there is no established term, but then there rarely is in the social sciences for a phenomena only a few months old. That the phenomean exists, is hugely imporant and needs a label is surely beyond dispute? As the two most respected financial broadsheets refer to a resurgence, surely wikki rules don't demand we change the name - there's not that much difference between "Keynesian resurgence" and "resurgence of Keynesian" (as per FT) ? FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Feyd, I have not found time yet to continue this discussion. But I'm still concerned that trying to find a name for this newly-recognized phenomenon, and providing new analysis of it, is inconsistent with WP:OR and WP:NEO. I would ask that you please refrain from removing my tags-- since you started this page, and since I have raised reasonable doubts about its consistency with Wikipedia policy, it should really not be in your hands to remove the tags. That should be left up to other editors. One possibility is that we could make a request to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics for outside opinions. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

On reflection there is a case for tagging the article as a neologism and you’re right the community should decide these sorts of issues not any one editor. Sorry am still learning the wiki way of doing things. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is dumb, even if this is a Keynesian revival, all this phenomenon deserves is its own sub section in the macroeconomics or neo-keynesian economics article. The only thing this article is informing us of is our own bickering. Why does this deserve a whole new article!?! I admit the financial crisis and global recession are pushing through big issues in Economics today, but we can easily reflect this in articles about economics that are well established. If we are at a watershed moment in neo-keynesian economics and macroeconomics, then it should be reflected in those articles. Selfexiled (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Rinconsoleao, you are clearly in support of having an article on this phenomenon, but you seem to be against the title, claiming it is a neologism. This may be true, but you haven't offered an alternative title for this article. Please do so. 86.173.255.107 (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for some input over at the OR noticeboard with a view to having the tags removed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that the word "resurgence" is lowercase, is the objection the implication it's a "neologism" satisfied? Professor marginalia (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Eliminating original research

The original research tag shouldn't be removed yet. There are OR problems, especially in the "background" section of the article. If this article confines itself to what other sources have already written about the return to Keynesian remedies it will comply. But where it starts to assemble from sources that have not written about this new wave of Keynesianism then it's going off into original research. In other words, just because it's about Keynes, or just because it's about economics or fiscal/monetary policies does not mean it can be used here. By the same token, background about the political context, or the global financial situation can't be brought in either. These issues may be important-but wikipedia is not the publisher of new thoughts, ideas, correlations, etc. Authors of published sources can make the associations. Wikipedia's editors can only use such claims when and where those sources who do so are found and cited. Simply put, use sources which are writing about this return to Keynesian fiscal policy to source any relevant background and context for it-editors can't do that job themselves. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks again for your good advice Professor, i intend to edit this accordingly after giving it some thought. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If you really want to continue to pursue this article I'd recommend limiting the scope of the background information towards the evolution of fiscal policy since the publication of The General Theory of Employment. I would suggest focusing on major theme of the rise of monetarism over fiscal stimulus policies in the United States and the IMF and, obviously, stagflation. In other words the background should focus strictly on the demise/falling-out-of-favor of Keynesian economics. This competing views section is trying to sum up the historical bickering over Macroeconomic policy in one section, this does no justice to that topic nor this article. Selfexiled (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, there's certainly a lot that can be said on that topic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] News article about resurgence.

Just in case these are helpful, here are some news articles that I found that talk about the Keynesian resurgence. LK (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Financial Times: The undeniable shift to Keynes By Chris Giles in London, Ralph Atkins in Frankfurt and,Krishna Guha in Washington

• Market Dogma Carried Seeds of Its Own Downfall, Martin Wolf Says By Alan Purkiss

• The Party Of Goldwater? What the GOP's hostility to Obama's stimulus plan portends by Michael Hirsh

• NPR: Keynes' Economic Theories Back In Vogue

• NPR: Obama Gives Keynes His First Real-World Test by Adam Davidson and Alex Blumberg

• Milton Friedman is the worst possible taste at present Alex Millmow

• Crisis Resuscitates Keynes, Central Planning

• By Elfren Sicangco Cruz Laissez-faire economics The year 2008 could mark the end of an era when the resurgence of laissez-faire economics became the dominant economic and public policy of governments, especially in the West.

• The Global Economic Crisis and the Resurgence of Keynesian Economics Dr. Wolassa L. Kumo

[edit] Krugman's recent review of the state of macroeconomics

We should make note of this somewhere:

So here’s what I think economists have to do. First, they have to face up to the inconvenient reality that financial markets fall far short of perfection, that they are subject to extraordinary delusions and the madness of crowds. Second, they have to admit — and this will be very hard for the people who giggled and whispered over Keynes — that Keynesian economics remains the best framework we have for making sense of recessions and depressions. Third, they’ll have to do their best to incorporate the realities of finance into macroeconomics.

From "How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?" By PAUL KRUGMAN September 2, 2009 NYT. LK (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Have added it, once ive read these sources i also plan to include similar calls from Lord Skidelsky's Keynes: the return of the master , Paul Davidson's The Keynes Solution and Peter Clarke's Keynes: The Twentieth Century's Most Influential Economist. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense

The Keynesian resurgence portion on academia is nonsense. Firstly,

"While the school of thought known as New Keynesian economics has dominated the teaching of economics at universities, New Keynesians largely believed that monetary policy was enough to stabilize the economy, and largely rejected interventionist policy recommendations (as advocated by Keynes) as unnecessary."

This is completely without citation and wrong. New Keynesians do not reject interventionist government policies, they merely contrast with Keynes himself on scope of governmental policy. None of them believe monetary policy is solely enough to stabilize the economy. This is nonsense.

Also,

"With a few notable exceptions such as Robert Shiller, James Galbraith and Paul Krugman, the Keynesian resurgence has been largely driven by policy makers rather than academic economists."

This is bizarre in that it implies that the majority of great economists don't favor Keynesian ideas and this is a political idea rather than economic.

We have known New Keynesian / Keynesian economists who advocate Keynesian government policy at this time in who are the top of their fields:

1 - Joseph Stiglitz (Nobel laureate, 2nd most cited economist)

2 - Olivier Blanchard (chief economist of the world bank)

3 - Paul Krugman (Nobel laureate, 12th most cited economist)

4 - Mark Gertler (14th most cited economist)

5 - Maurice Obstfeld (20th most cited economist)

6 - George Akerlof (Nobel laureate)

7 - J. Bradford DeLong (former deputy assistant secretary of the treasury, scholar to fed. bank of San Francisco)

Other Economists who advocate Keynesian-type stimulus / policy interventions:

1 - Daron Acemoğlu (John Bates Clark medalist, 8th most cited economist)

2 - Martin Feldstein (John Bates Clark medalist, 7th most cited economist)

3 - Lawrence Summers (John Bates Clark medalist, 13th most cited economist)

4 - Robert Solow (Nobel laureate)

While many of these economists don't support the specific bill in the US, they broadly support strong economic intervention in recessions. People like Acemoglu, Feldstein, and Stigtliz don't like the specific bill - but they think government stimulus and intervention in a Keynesian style are necessary.

These are just off the top of my head. It's not like Keynesian economics is some bizarre fringe theory in academia - it's incredibly well respected and the article is misleading.

Seelum (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I wrote some of that, and although you make good points, I think 'nonsense' is a bit strong a word to use. But please feel free to correct and rewrite, and if possible add citations. This page is relatively new, and is still very much a work in progress. Of course, I'll weigh in as well, but that's the nature of Wikipedia. BTW, if you are interested in editing economics articles, you should join Wikiproject Economics, or at least drop by the talk page. regards LK (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

This is the lead formerly Starting in 2008, there has been a resurgence of interest in Keynesian economics among high level policy makers from the world's industrialized economies. They have shown a renewed interest in implementing economic solutions in accordance with the recommendations made by John Maynard Keynes in response to the Great Depression—such as fiscal stimulus and expansionary monetary policy.

I changed it to this for clarity and neutral point of view Starting in 2008, there has been a resurgence of interest in Keynesian economics among various policy makers from the world's industrialized economies, and increased newspaper reports connected to economic theories made by John Maynard Keynes in response to the Great Depression—such as fiscal stimulus and expansionary monetary policy.

The lead should not tell people things but present things in a neutral way. Also this beginning is all sourced in newspapers all three sources, which is fine but not so sure it sourced the first sentence very well. high level policy makers could mean a lot of things and sounds a little buzzwordish, so that was edited out for neutral presentation. Reminds me of how they used to describe officials in the old Soviet Union. skip sievert (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Will wait third opinion, but I think it's specious to claim that since the sources are newspapers, all that's happened are newspaper reports. The sources are RS for policy changes that happened. The lead should state those policy changes clearly. Articles on Obama do not state, 'there have been newspaper reports about President Obama and health care policy', articles should read, 'President Obama has proposed health care reform', cited to RS newspapers. LK (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, and further editing and sourcing will improve this beginning part most likely. There was just too much speculation in regard to the sentences there before also. They are reliable sources yes, and magazines are fine, but the source maybe can be pointed out until some other sources are known and included to replace the three magazine ones which the article now relies on to make its initial points. skip sievert (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree w/LK. The article should report what's happening, according to reliable sources, not report that sources are reporting. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you source things then to more than three magazines for the lead then and premise of the article? It just seems like a stretch, though obviously they are r.s. - Changed it then to this and increased media reporting on the economic policies suggested by <- end - In this case if this is a resurgence then it probably is a cultural thing, as to a wave of reporting in topical ways, and media, so it may also be a part of the story. - Changed further clunkiness to [5] - skip sievert (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Those three that you denigrate as mere magazines are The Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal; I have added one more cite to the PBS Newshour. These are all news sources of the highest standard. The article is littered with many more similar cites. Take your pick in adding them. LK (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Tone L.K. - I am not your enemy. When we edit together we do a constructive job, so keep that in mind. I am not denigrating anything. I said they were obviously r.s. though it is easy to argue that Corporate fascism or some such thing controls many media sources, and because the article seems to start out with a premise to prove in a concerted statement of resurgence etc. neutral pov is important here... another issue is Crony capitalism maybe in the article page, as to its not being part of the subject much in illustrating how military industrial congressional complex controls the economy also via the Fed in sometimes uncreative money special interest ways. Pbs. also is sponsored by the same kind of corporate media which is in conflict with alternative views of social/economic change, other than so called mainstream progressive liberal sorts. Just saying. The 'highest standard'? Not so much as all depend on advertising and those are bought and paid for accounts, and that effects what is presented as to content in those papers, in perspective. They do not want to lose their advertising clients or rock the status quo as to that. My opinion. - skip sievert (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Skip, I'ld like to remind you to address and comment on the edits, not on the other editors. LK (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Could you comment on issues or concerns being brought up though? skip sievert (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish intellectuals

The article cites several modern-day economists which are called neo-keynesians, such as Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, Joseph Stiglitz, Mark Gertler, George Akerlof, Robert Solow and Robert Skidelsky. Is there any good reason that explains why so many of them are Jewish ? I'm not saying this in any negative or discriminatory way, but much like the often-berated neoconservatives, it is possible that the neokeynesian movement originated in Jewish intellectual circles, which have produced many doctors, philosophers, economists, politcians, scientists, etc. ADM (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah you caught us. We are the neo-jewish-catholic-chinese secret cabal of Keynesian promoters who want to make economic depressions a thing of the past, so as to lull the masses to sleep. OK, not a serious answer. Seriously though, i) Keynes was Church of England, ii) Of the 3 most noted neo-Keynesians (John Hicks, Franco Modigliani, and Paul Samuelson), only 1 was Jewish, iii) The two economists that founded New Keynesian economics (Paul Romer and Greg Mankiw) are not Jewish. LK (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

the hotbed of pre Keynsian thinking in the US was Harvard University in the 1920s & early 1930s. Hardly a fortress of Jewish intellectualism I believe. DEddy (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Problem in critical section

Lawrence Khoo is removing sourced information. This information which is a fine critical appraisal.

Start It is argued that Keynes himself was skeptical of the efficacy of monetary policy. Keynes followers have become more vocal in that regard. Keynes wrote that the effect of increasing the quantity of money is "not nugatory," and that "the terms on which the monetary authority will change the quantity of money enters as a real determinant into the economic scheme." But by the 1960s, Keynes's advocates were minimizing the role of monetary policy and exaggerating the apparently magical properties of government borrowing. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9915 Faith-Based Economics by Alan Edwards. Article appeared in the February 9, 2009 issue of the National Review. Retrieved Oct-2-09

Keynesian ideas has attracted considerable criticism. While there has been broad consensus among international leaders concerning the need for co-ordinated stimulus, the German administration initially stood out in their reluctance to wholeheartedly embrace Keynesian policy."Germany starts to look stimulating". Financial times. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/42660b7a-e111-11dd-b0e8-000077b07658.html. Retrieved 2008-01-22. End removed info. by L.K.

It appears that L.K is disruptively editing this article as to favoritism to its subject. Not good. Removing sourced critical aspects. This editor has previously identified himself as an expert and endorses mainstream on his user page. Here is the edit and revert skip sievert (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a personal attack. You have received warnings about this before. Refrain from commenting on other editors. LK (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A note to neutral third party editors. The first paragraph of the edit in question is sourced to a editorial from a non-neutral organization. It statrs with a weasel POV attack. The second part of the paragraph is largely plagiarized (lifted verbatim) from the source. The second paragraph starts with a POV criticism that can either be viewed as OR or at best SYN. LK (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes please be careful about casting aspersions on other editors motivations skip sievert, which I agree is a personal attack. I also agree LK was right to revert your edit for the reasons he explained. On the other hand there was some strong criticism in the article, so thanks for providing that, Ive added a cite for it with a summary that will hopefully be acceptable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack it was a statement of fact. I have documented multiple areas where L.K. is giving personal attacks though, and if this is brought up again will present them. Telling it plainly is not a personal attack. Also the way L.K. phrased his response above should give pause. Weasel POV attack... huh? this is not good. Also lifted verbatim is not accurate. If there are tandem editors in the page here it will be obvious soon. WP:Wikilawyer as to the kind of talk above by L.K. can quickly get caught in meaningless loops of muddle which only slow things down (whatever the hoped for outcome), so this would have to go through mediation first, either way. With editors still fixated on notions of "mainstream," as ever, there is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says articles are meant or need to put forth a "mainstream" outlook. What some editors don't understand is that readers (often the kind who check out what WP has to say on a topic) aren't fooled for long by articles with oddly narrow outlooks and sourcing but rather, more often than not, it only stirs them up to look elsewhere. skip sievert (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

LK comes across as strongly committed to neutrality, for example when I added perhaps the most penetrating criticism of all to the main Keynes page (it was from Schumpeter) LK put an encouraging note on my talk. I dont think you're get anywhere with that threat, anymore than the hollow one you made about putting this up for deletion if you dont get your way on the lede. Lets have more collaboration and less pointless personal stuff please. Weasel has a special meaning on Wikipedia, even a word like "nicest" can count as weasel. Its true an article doesnt need to have a mainstream outlook, but it does have to be neutral. Our founding pillar Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, the only one Jimbo says in non negotiable, says that viewpoints should be represented "in proportion to the prominence of each." By definition this often results in articles using more mainstream sources than they do fringe. If anything, we now have a disproportionate number of criticisms, but this will soon be corrected as there are abundant quality sources with a positive take on the resurgence that have yet to be assimilated into the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is not a positive take on Keynesian resurgence, and most likely if there really is a resurgence it is going to burned at the stake soon as the collapse of the economy continues as to things like this in California.

It is obvious that the article was mostly written as a fan site or paean to the Keynes person, his thoughts and advice. That was evident from the tone of the article previously especially the beginning which is now a little better as to having been copy edited. The diffs would show that, and making a claim of neutral pov is hardly accurate for the way the article was written. It still needs a lot of copy editing for neutral presentation... and the aspects of fans as advocates is not good in that regard. The article is a candidate for deletion probably and the term is probably not notable or maybe a neologism that has been grasped onto which is probably not a good enough reason for the article to begin with. skip sievert (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Non neutral pov in article

One example of such which is now corrected in the critical section here. That is pretty over the top as to presentation difficulty of leading a reader. The whole article needs some serious copy editing for issues like that also. skip sievert (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Youre right in this instance, thanks for correcting. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, and keep in mind that I enjoy going back and forth in real time to try making editing changes as to improvements. So, feel free to copy edit my copy edits and generally that is a good way to change articles, and can be fun also as to several people editing constructively. skip sievert (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)