Monday, May 5, 2014

What's in a name? that which we call Naked Keynesianism

Someone asked me this week why the blog is named Naked Keynesianism. It was in the very first post in February 2011. The story was on Fox News, about what Jamie Galbraith was teaching his students. Naked Keynesianism! And that seemed the perfect title for the blog.
At the end of the day, names do not matter, the content is what is relevant, but the Fixed News 'journalists' turn out to show a lot about the true content of their views. What was the line? "What’s in a name? that which we call a rose; by any other name would smell as sweet." For Fixed News Keynesianism does NOT smell like roses.


  1. Matias,

    Bob Murphy has a post up in which he argues that the capital debates show that mainstream econ is wrong and that Austrian economics is right. Perhaps you could have a look, and explain what's wrong with his argument:

    1. those two posts don't explicitly mention the capital debates, but the basic argument about capital comes from there. In this previous post he mentions the capital debates in relation to Piketty:

      "Some Background on Capital Controversy

      I am going to be putting out stuff in the coming month on why Thomas Piketty’s use of a neoclassical aggregate production function is so dubious–Austrians and Post-Keynesians agree–but if you just can’t bear the suspense, here are three links.." etc"

    2. Will try later today. It's an obvious mistake. Austrian theory of capital is not different in essence that other marginalist views. Thanks for the tip.

    3. this paper explains Murphy's austrian argument in more detail, with reference to the capital debates:

  2. Wrong! It's The Giant Keynes Head Website (TGKHW)!

    I even just recently made a video tribute:

    I have to get my inspirational from somewhere. ;)


Trade and Finance

Teaching a course on international economics (trade and finance) for international relations students. More on that later. Just wanted to p...