3 ms·

I confess that I still haven't read all of General Theory (it's sitting on my to-finish bookshelf), but I really found it quite turgid and wouldn't recommend it

I confess that I still haven't read all of General Theory (it's sitting on my to-finish bookshelf), but I really found it quite turgid and wouldn't recommend it to anyone without some economics background (not least because it'll put you to sleep). Besides, most of the standard formulations of Keynes' work were done by other people, eg. Hicks-Hansen put together the IS-LM model based on Keynes ramblings. On a scale of turgidity, the General Theory is on a par with "The Road to Serfdom" by Keynes' contemporary nemesis Friedrich von Hayek. I willed my way through that one, but a 10 page cliff's notes version would probably have sufficed. On the other hand, Milton Friedman's works are actually pretty good reads (despite my reservations about some of his thought).

nostrademons 18y ago
I would definitely recommend starting with some other text. I agree with everything you said about its turgidity. However, I really think people should make their way through it anyway. Part of this is because most intro textbooks seem to gloss over it: I remember suddenly finding myself studying aggregate supply and aggregate demand in my intro macro course, and thinking "Wait...this doesn't make any sense. It's not at all like the equilibrium models we were just doing. And it directly contradicts what we were just taught about the interest rate being the equilibrium price in the loanable funds market." I can only speak to Mankiw's textbook, but the presentation seemed very disconnected. The other reason I think people should read it is that there's a very widespread tendency in Internet discussions for people to say "Those dumbass Keynesians. They didn't get anything right" and then discount everything in the theory. But their arguments are usually based on a misunderstanding of what Keynes was really saying, and he has rebuttals and justifications in the book that would make you think a little harder about what you're trying to discredit. I view Keynes as being a lot like Newtonian physics. There're edge cases where it's wrong; you certainly can't take it as a universal rule. But his basic insights were mostly right, and you need to understand them to understand the more precise models that came later.
- vitaminj 18y ago
  That's exactly what I don't like about Mankiw's book, it's a bit all over the shop. I prefer Olivier Blanchard's book, which sacrifices some completeness for clarity - he makes it very clear that IS/LM is a short run model, AS/AD is a medium run model and Solow-Swan is a long run model. In fact, the book is presented in that sequence. In Mankiw's book, Solow-Swan is presented before AS/AD. Mundell-Fleming's open economy model is tucked somewhere in the middle too, which I think should be presented as an extension once the core short, medium and long run models have been established. It was hard enough for me to get my head around price expectations and the AS/AD curves, much less doing it out of the natural sequence.

nostrademons 18y ago

I would definitely recommend starting with some other text. I agree with everything you said about its turgidity. However, I really think people should make their way through it anyway. Part of this is because most intro textbooks seem to gloss over it: I remember suddenly finding myself studying aggregate supply and aggregate demand in my intro macro course, and thinking "Wait...this doesn't make any sense. It's not at all like the equilibrium models we were just doing. And it directly contradicts what we were just taught about the interest rate being the equilibrium price in the loanable funds market." I can only speak to Mankiw's textbook, but the presentation seemed very disconnected. The other reason I think people should read it is that there's a very widespread tendency in Internet discussions for people to say "Those dumbass Keynesians. They didn't get anything right" and then discount everything in the theory. But their arguments are usually based on a misunderstanding of what Keynes was really saying, and he has rebuttals and justifications in the book that would make you think a little harder about what you're trying to discredit. I view Keynes as being a lot like Newtonian physics. There're edge cases where it's wrong; you certainly can't take it as a universal rule. But his basic insights were mostly right, and you need to understand them to understand the more precise models that came later.

vitaminj 18y ago
That's exactly what I don't like about Mankiw's book, it's a bit all over the shop. I prefer Olivier Blanchard's book, which sacrifices some completeness for clarity - he makes it very clear that IS/LM is a short run model, AS/AD is a medium run model and Solow-Swan is a long run model. In fact, the book is presented in that sequence. In Mankiw's book, Solow-Swan is presented before AS/AD. Mundell-Fleming's open economy model is tucked somewhere in the middle too, which I think should be presented as an extension once the core short, medium and long run models have been established. It was hard enough for me to get my head around price expectations and the AS/AD curves, much less doing it out of the natural sequence.