Review of John Hicks' Article 'a Suggested Interpretation of Keynes'
A Review of
Mr. Keynes and the “Classics”; A Suggested Interpretation
By J. R. Hicks
Word count: 2,932, (excluding mathematical equations)
We aim to examine the British economist Sir John Hick’s article ‘Mr Keynes and the “classics”; A suggested interpretation (April 1937)’ in which Hicks seeks to devise a simpler more cruder ‘classical’ model of the imperial, however complicated work of Professor Pigou’s ‘The theory of unemployment’ that will rightfully disagree with Mr Keynes’s mystifying but accepted proposal in his ‘General theory of unemployment.’ We seek to explore the proposed model by Hicks with the support of mathematics, economic behaviour and theory from his own independent views as well established economists.
I
To the amusement of the reader Hicks initially portrays Keynes’ work as ‘satiric’ and ‘bewildered,’ this is a clear indication that Hicks is not very fond of the book The General Theory of Employment, however he acknowledges many of Keynes’ views are widely accepted by classical economists. This is true as many Classical views are outdated, as when in his book Keynes attacks the views of Classical Economists as ‘its teaching is misleading and disastrous if we attempt to apply it to the facts of experience.’ Sir Hicks goes on to applaud Pigou’s “The Theory of Unemployment” however recognises it is “an exceedingly difficult book,” which is why it is not accepted by modern economists. Hicks differentiates Pigou’s work from Classical Economists view as being more ambitious; Pigou’s work is described as being a ‘tour de force’ as he talks in real terms in his writings, whereas other economists talk in “money terms.” Hick’s believes that it is hard to compare Keynes’ work with Pigou’s as Classical economists would have liked to ‘investigate many of those problems in money terms’ so as to draw comparisons, however Hicks state that although Keynes says ‘there is no classical theory of money wages and employment,’ he was wrong as in those
Mr. Keynes and the “Classics”; A Suggested Interpretation
By J. R. Hicks
Word count: 2,932, (excluding mathematical equations)
We aim to examine the British economist Sir John Hick’s article ‘Mr Keynes and the “classics”; A suggested interpretation (April 1937)’ in which Hicks seeks to devise a simpler more cruder ‘classical’ model of the imperial, however complicated work of Professor Pigou’s ‘The theory of unemployment’ that will rightfully disagree with Mr Keynes’s mystifying but accepted proposal in his ‘General theory of unemployment.’ We seek to explore the proposed model by Hicks with the support of mathematics, economic behaviour and theory from his own independent views as well established economists.
I
To the amusement of the reader Hicks initially portrays Keynes’ work as ‘satiric’ and ‘bewildered,’ this is a clear indication that Hicks is not very fond of the book The General Theory of Employment, however he acknowledges many of Keynes’ views are widely accepted by classical economists. This is true as many Classical views are outdated, as when in his book Keynes attacks the views of Classical Economists as ‘its teaching is misleading and disastrous if we attempt to apply it to the facts of experience.’ Sir Hicks goes on to applaud Pigou’s “The Theory of Unemployment” however recognises it is “an exceedingly difficult book,” which is why it is not accepted by modern economists. Hicks differentiates Pigou’s work from Classical Economists view as being more ambitious; Pigou’s work is described as being a ‘tour de force’ as he talks in real terms in his writings, whereas other economists talk in “money terms.” Hick’s believes that it is hard to compare Keynes’ work with Pigou’s as Classical economists would have liked to ‘investigate many of those problems in money terms’ so as to draw comparisons, however Hicks state that although Keynes says ‘there is no classical theory of money wages and employment,’ he was wrong as in those
References: [1] JM Keynes (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. London: Palgrave Macmillan. p11. [2] Sidney Webb. (1912). The Economic Theory of a Legal Minimum Wage. The Journal of Political Economy. 20 (10), 973. [5] Mauro Boianovsky, (2003) http://e-groups.unb.br/face/eco/cpe/TD/282Mar03MBoianovsky.pdf [6] Mauro Boianov-sky, (2003) http://e-groups.unb.br/face/eco/cpe/TD/282Mar03MBoianovsky.pdf -------------------------------------------- [ 1 ]. JM Keynes (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. London: Palgrave Macmillan. p11. [ 2 ]. Sidney Webb. (1912). The Economic Theory of a Legal Minimum Wage. The Journal of Political Economy. 20 (10), 973. [ 7 ]. Mauro Boianovsky, (2003) http://e-groups.unb.br/face/eco/cpe/TD/282Mar03MBoianovsky.pdf [ 8 ]