In contrast to the lucid brilliance of much of Keynes’s work, the General Theory is often described as a badly written book. Untidy, lacking a clear design, with ideas not fully thought out and arguments flawed by obscurities, inconsistencies or actual error, etc. — the perceived defects are numerous.1 They are considered either to be evidence of Keynes’s struggles to free himself from orthodoxy or are ascribed to the hasty preparation required to bring the new ideas before a world thought to be in urgent need of them.
KeywordsIncome Expense Straw Defend Stake
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
- 1.See, for example, A. Leijonhufvud, On Keynesian Economics and the Economics of Keynes (New York: OUP, 1968) pp. 10, 16Google Scholar
- D. E. Moggridge, Keynes, 2nd edn (London: Macmillan, 1980) pp. 94, 95Google Scholar
- S. E. Harris in A. Hansen, A Guide to Keynes (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1953) p. ixGoogle Scholar
- J. C. Gilbert, Keynes’ s Impact on Monetary Economics (London: Butterworth, 1982) pp. 25, 26.Google Scholar
- 3.See Moggridge, Keynes, ch. 5; D. Patinkin, ‘The Process of Writing The General Theory: A Critical Survey’; and D. Moggridge, ‘Cambridge Discussion and Criticism Surrounding the Writing of The General Theory: A Chronicler’s View’, in D. Patinkin and J. C. Leith (eds), Keynes, Cambridge and the General Theory (London: Macmillan, 1977) pp. 3–24; 64–71.Google Scholar
- 36.In a letter to Wilson in October 1953. Quoted in J. R. Presley, Robertsonian Economics (London: Macmillan, 1979) p. 84, n. 80.Google Scholar
- 42.D. H. Robertson, Banking Policy and the Price Level (London: P. S. King & Son Ltd., 1926).Google Scholar
- 50.Of the many studies of Ibsen, John Northam’s Ibsen: A Critical Study (CUP, 1973) is particularly helpful here.Google Scholar