Abstract
This paper shows that the return to Keynes’s irrelevant and incorrect doctrines from his General Theory has begun; hence, it must be prevented. This paper shows: 1) Hazlitt’s criticism of Keynes’s concept of the investment multiplier is entirely correct, revealed and based on Keynes’s fundamental flaw using throughout of the General Theory, namely replacement between cause and effect; 2) Hazlitt correctly criticized Keynes’s extremely vague and incomplete definition of involuntary unemployment and full employment; however, he incorrectly stated that involuntary unemployment couldn’t be equilibrium phenomenon; 3) Hazlitt successfully demonstrated that Keynes’s monetary theory was confusing, incomplete, and even incorrect.
Highlights
This paper shows that the process for the 21st century scandal, namely, return to Keynes’s irrelevant and incorrect doctrines to reality from his General Theory governing thoughts of professional economists and government leaders, is started; it must be prevented.More than 50 years ago, H
This paper has shown that the return to Keynes’s irrelevant and incorrect doctrines from his General Theory has begun; it must be prevented
For this purposes this paper examines only three central doubtful and incorrect issues of Keynes’s General Theory among a lot of flaws Revealed by Hazlitt, because each of them is considered the main factor of the “revolutionary” character of Keynes’s theory by various economists: 1) investment multiplier; 2) involuntary unemployment; and 3) theory of money
Summary
This paper shows that the process for the 21st century scandal, namely, return to Keynes’s irrelevant and incorrect doctrines to reality from his General Theory governing thoughts of professional economists and government leaders, is started; it must be prevented. It is clear that not all claiming of Hazlitt against Keynes’s theory is correct, but majority of them required serious attention from the side who dealt with Keynes’s approach, especially from the side of all Keynesians (post, neo, new) This doesn’t happen; the opposite is true: absolute ignorance (vide infra). In the Preface Hazlitt asserted that: In the seventeen years since my anthology’s original appearance, there has been a profound change in the academic reputation of Keynes’s General Theory. It is no longer accepted as the new gospel. Despite that Hazlitt’s book deserves contra analysis in detail, alike his analysis of General Theory, this paper examines only three central doubtful and incorrect issues of Keynes’s General Theory ([1] [15]) because each of them is considered as the main factor of the revolutionary character of Keynes’s theory by various economists and today relevant real economy: 1) investment multiplier; 2) involuntary unemployment; and 3) theory of money
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
