Keynes and the long term

Yesterday, when the story about Niall Ferguson quipping that Keynes didn't worry about the future because he was gay and childless was doing the rounds, I commented elsewhere that having children certainly seems to have no effect at all on the Tea Party Right and their dismissive attitude to the long term  issue of climate change.   (The point being that they are an obvious example of how having kids is not co-related to "concern with the future of humanity".)

But what I suspected was that Ferguson's take on Keynes not being concerned about the future was the more fundamentally wrongheaded claim.  Not being one who reads much about economics, though, I didn't know where to find a good commentary on this aspect.

Overnight, what I wanted appeared at Slate.  It's a good read.  Here is the opening slab, for which I trust Slate will forgive me for reproducing:

Niall Ferguson, the distinguished historian who for the past several years has increasingly abandoned his trade in favor of inept conservative punditry, stepped in it over the weekend when he told an investors’ conference that John Maynard Keynes’ allegedly misguided ideas stemmed from the fact that he was gay and had no intention of having children, and was thus blinded to the importance of long-run considerations.

When an uproar ensued, Ferguson, to his credit, offered a full and complete apology on his website. But both the controversy and the apology primarily reflect the welcome fact that gay-bashing is increasingly frowned upon in polite society. They don’t confront the larger smear, which is against Keynes’ ideas. The fact of the matter is that both Keynes personally and “Keynesian” thinkers about macroeconomics in general care deeply about long-term issues. In fact, Keynes is one of the deepest thinkers about the long-term economic trajectory of all time.

The assumption that Keynes only cared about the short run stems from Keynes’ too-often quoted line that “in the long-term we are all dead.” This is, obviously, true. But while it’s often taken to be something like a 1930s version of YOLO, that kind of carpe diem economics has nothing to do with what Keynes was actually writing about.

The line appears not in the General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money but in 1923’s Tract on Monetary Reform. Most countries, including Great Britain, had abandoned the gold standard during World War I. After the war, the major powers sought to return to gold and the British authorities wanted to return their currency to its pre-war peg, a step Keynes thought would be disastrous. The question of the long run arose in response to the claim that overvaluing a currency relative to the currencies of its trade partners can’t make a difference since in the long-run domestic prices will adjust to any exchange rate.

Keynes says that this is true. If after the conclusion of the American Civil War “the American dollar had been stabilized and defined by law at 10 percent below its present value” that would have had no implications for the world economy of the 1920s, 60 years later. Nominal prices would have adjusted. “But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs,” he wrote, “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.”

Read the whole thing.

It certainly helps illustrate the intellectual poverty of what passes for much Right wing commentary on economics in the last few years.