"It is not easy to change our ideas about anything -- and especially about something like unemployment -- when we are so certain of the correctness of our original views. And in the social sciences it is extremely difficult, first, to be fully aware of our preconceptions, and second, to examine them objectively. If we could bring to the task the same scientific attitude that guides the student of chemistry or biology, there would be no difficulty. But, as we have already seen, it is much harder to give up the belief that "money needs a gold backing" than it is, let us say, to accept a new model of the structure of the atom ...
"A word must be said, before we begin our analysis, about the political implications of the Keynesian theory. This is necessary because there is so much misinformation on the subject. The truth is simple. The Keynesian theory no more supports the New Deal stand or the Republican stand than do the newest data on atomic fission. This does not mean that the Keynesian theory cannot be used by supporters of either political party; for it can be, and if it is properly used, it should be. The theory of employment we are going to study is simply an attempt to account for variations in the level of employment in a capitalist economy. It is possible, as we shall see later, to frame either the Republican or the Democratic economic dogma in terms of the theory."
I think the general statement might be applicable to mainstream American economics' resistance to modern monetary theory today (p. 346-7). As a quote attributed to Mark Twain puts it, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
No comments:
Post a Comment