Thus, the weight of my criticism is directed against the inadequacy of the theoretical foundations of the laissez-faire doctrine upon which I was brought up and for many years I taught
Interpretation
Keynes critiques the flaws in laissez-faire economic theory based on his experiences as a teacher and student.
In this quote, John Maynard Keynes expresses his critique of the laissez-faire economic doctrine, which emphasizes minimal government intervention in the economy. He reflects on the limitations of the theoretical foundations of this doctrine, suggesting that it is inadequate for addressing the complexities of economic realities. His experience as both a student and a teacher of this doctrine prompts him to question its validity, which ultimately contributed to his development of new economic theories.
In practice
During a lecture on economic theory, one might quote Keynes to emphasize the need for critical evaluation of existing doctrines.
As time goes on, I get more and more convinced that the right method of investment is to put fairly large sums into enterprises which one thinks one knows something about and in the management of which one thoroughly believes.
The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is generally understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else.
The disruptive powers of excessive national fecundity may have played a greater part in bursting the bonds of convention than either the power of ideas or the errors of autocracy.
We will not have any more crashes in our time.
This long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again.
The book, as it stands, seems to me to be one of the most frightful muddles I have ever read, with scarcely a sound proposition in it beginning with page 45 [Hayek provided historical background up to page 45; after that came his theoretical model], and yet it remains a book of some interest, which is likely to leave its mark on the mind of the reader. It is an extraordinary example of how, starting with a mistake, a remorseless logician can end up in bedlam.
The desire for economic prosperity is itself not culturally determined but almost universally shared
Tax breaks and other financial breaks that favor the wealthiest among us do not create greater prosperity for all; they simply siphon off more and more money to those who already have it, and more and more money away from those who do not.
It is credit that matters, not money (in other words, monetarism is a false ideology).
In a sense, the market, by expecting a fall in prices, discounts that fall and makes it happen right away instead of later. Expectations speed up future price reactions.
My premise is not to tax to destroy the wealth of the wealthy; it's to increase the wealth of the bottom and the middle class.
If strong economic conditions can partially reverse supply-side damage after it has occurred, then policymakers may want to aim at being more accommodative during recoveries than would be called for under the traditional view that supply is largely independent of demand.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.