Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (3207)	4/24/2001 10:49:38 AM
From: MeDroogies	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74559

I don't know if that's a real word, either, but my English isn't up to par, either. I work with a dictionary nearby most of the time. I have a masters in econometrics and economic history from the New School for Social Research. I'm not so sure Keynes' work on the Treaty is what keeps him in such high regard. I think it is more his ability to see that government spending plays a role in the economy (at a point in time when anything the government did was considered a net of zero) and his contributions incorporating it into mainstream economics. Certainly his vision was lacking when it came to Bretton Woods....or rather, I should say, he let his compromise politics play a greater role when his vision should have held firm. His plans for the post war world were quite visionary, but the US really holed them. Personally, I like Schumpeter much better than Keynes. His ideas have stood up better, have had more to offer to the general businessman, and were much more dynamic. Keynes was a godsend for the political economy, but really didn't offer businessmen much insight in how to manage the general business climate. He worked in the world of static information (typical of most economists), whereas Schumpeter was building more toward a dynamic model, one which has continued to be built upon even today.