Keynes the Man.pdf - The Ludwig von Mises Institute

46 Keynes, the ManGeneral Theory , we would still be in the economic dark ages.In other words, the story of Keynes and the Classics is evidencefor the General Theory. Indeed, its use suggests that itmay be the most compelling evidence available. In this case,proof that Pigou did not hold the position attributed to him is… evidence against Keynes. … [This conclusion] raises the …serious question of the methodological status of a theory thatrelies so heavily on falsified evidence. (Ibid., p. 15)In his review of The General Theory, Pigou was properly scornfulof Keynes’s “macédoine of misrepresentations,” and yet suchwas the power of the tide of opinion (or of the charisma of Keynes)that, by 1950, after Keynes’s death, Pigou had engaged in the sortof abject recantation indulged in by Lionel Robbins, which Keyneshad long tried to wrest from him (Pigou 1950; Johnson and Johnson1978, p. 179; Corry 1978, p. 11–12).But Keynes used tactics in the selling of The General Theoryother than reliance on his charisma and on systematic deception.He curried favor with his students by praising them extravagantly,and he set them deliberately against non- Keynesians on the Cambridgefaculty by ridiculing his colleagues in front of these studentsand by encouraging them to harass his faculty colleagues. Forexample, Keynes incited his students with particular viciousnessagainst Dennis Robertson, his former close friend.As Keynes knew all too well, Robertson was painfully andextraordinarily shy, even to the point of communicating with hisfaithful, longtime secretary, whose office was next to his own, onlyby written memoranda. Robertson’s lectures were completely writtenout in advance, and because of his shyness he refused to answerany questions or engage in any discussion with either his studentsor his colleagues. And so it was a particularly diabolic torture forKeynes’s radical disciples, led by Joan Robinson and Richard Kahn,to have baited and taunted Robertson, harassing him with spitefulquestions and challenging him to debate (Johnson and Johnson1978, pp. 136ff.).