tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post110216967421360813..comments2024-03-22T06:05:36.544-04:00Comments on Kids Prefer Cheese: Budget Deficits II: You Can't Blame Dogs for Eating Out of the GarbageMungowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02340064320347875601noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7464708.post-1102268338892658792004-12-05T12:38:00.000-05:002004-12-05T12:38:00.000-05:00I don't think what you say here refutes Keynes. Y...I don't think what you say here refutes Keynes. You say:<br /><br /><I>Ideas are not opposed to “the interests,” but are more often tools, even rhetorical weapons, used in service of those interests. That is not to say that ideas don’t matter, but rather to insist (contra Keynes) that interests do.</I>Keynes's argument, I believe, is that (at least some) ideas are exogenously developed. Nearly every idea of consequence will help some people and hurt others, to differing degrees. Obviously, "the interests" will favor those ideas that help themselves, but there are many varied "interests." If ideas themselves didn't help persuade people, there would be no need for "the interests" to deploy them in debate. <br /><br />Now you may say that the sole purpose of debate is to convince other people that Idea X advances their interests, and you would probably be right. But if a new policy idea improves the welfare of more people than it harms, does this not increase the likelihood that it's a good policy according to some greater social welfare index?<br /><br />In the world of vulgar marxism ideas are a means by which the powerful dupe the workers. That is, ideas are endogenously supplied to the ruling class (except, presumably, for marxist ideas). This seems to be your position. Perhaps your position is true, but merely asserting it does not refute Keynes, it simply proposes an alternative hypothesis. One which I think is demonstrably wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com