Editing Keynesian economics (section)

===Marxism and Public choice===
{{See also|Marxian economics|Public choice}}

Some Marxist economists criticized Keynesian economics.<ref>{{cite book|title=A History of Marxian Economics, Volume II: 1929–1990|last1=Michael Charles Howard, John Edward King|publisher=Princeton Legacy library|pages=91–108}}</ref> For example, in his 1946 appraisal<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Sweezy|first1=P. M.|date=1946|title=John Maynard Keynes|journal=Science and Society|pages=398–405}}</ref> [[Paul Sweezy]]—while admitting that there was much in the ''General Theory'''s analysis of effective demand that Marxists could draw on—described Keynes as a prisoner of his neoclassical upbringing. Sweezy argued that Keynes had never been able to view the capitalist system as a totality. He argued that Keynes regarded the class struggle carelessly, and overlooked the class role of the capitalist state, which he treated as a ''[[deus ex machina]]'', and some other points. While [[Michał Kalecki]] was generally enthusiastic about the [[Keynesian Revolution]], he predicted that it would not endure, in his article "Political Aspects of Full Employment". In the article Kalecki predicted that the full employment delivered by Keynesian policy would eventually lead to a more assertive working class and weakening of the social position of business leaders, causing the elite to use their political power to force the displacement of the Keynesian policy even though profits would be higher than under a laissez faire system: The elites would not care about risking the higher profits in the pursuit of reclaiming prestige in the society and the political power.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/kalecki220510.html|title=Political Aspects of Full Employment|author=Kalecki|year=1943|work=[[Monthly Review]]|publisher=[[The Political Quarterly]]|access-date=2 May 2012|archive-date=7 April 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120407014237/http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/kalecki220510.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

[[James M. Buchanan]]<ref>James M. Buchanan and Richard E. Wagner, ''Democracy in Deficit: The Political Legacy of Lord Keynes'' (1977)</ref> criticized Keynesian economics on the grounds that governments would in practice be unlikely to implement theoretically optimal policies. The [[implicit assumption]] underlying the Keynesian fiscal revolution, according to Buchanan, was that economic policy would be made by wise men, acting without regard to political pressures or opportunities, and guided by disinterested economic technocrats. He argued that this was an unrealistic assumption about political, bureaucratic and electoral behaviour. Buchanan blamed Keynesian economics for what he considered a decline in America's fiscal discipline.<ref>Robert D. McFadden, [https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/business/economy/james-m-buchanan-economic-scholar-dies-at-93.html?pagewanted=all James M. Buchanan, Economic Scholar and Nobel Laureate, Dies at 93] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130515115238/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/business/economy/james-m-buchanan-economic-scholar-dies-at-93.html?pagewanted=all |date=15 May 2013 }}, ''New York Times'', 9 January 2013</ref> Buchanan argued that deficit spending would evolve into a permanent disconnect between spending and revenue, precisely because it brings short-term gains, so, ending up institutionalizing irresponsibility in the federal government, the largest and most central institution in our society.<ref>[[Tyler Cowen]], [https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/business/06view.html It's Time to Face the Fiscal Illusion] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161002021349/http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/business/06view.html |date=2 October 2016 }}, ''New York Times'', 5 March 2011</ref>

[[Martin Feldstein]] argues that the legacy of Keynesian economics–the misdiagnosis of unemployment, the fear of saving, and the unjustified government intervention–affected the fundamental ideas of policy makers.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Feldstein|first1=Martin|date=Summer 1981|title=The retreat from Keynesian economics|journal=The Public Interest|pages=92–105}}</ref>
[[Milton Friedman]] thought that Keynes's political bequest was harmful for two reasons. First, he thought whatever the economic analysis, benevolent dictatorship is likely sooner or later to lead to a totalitarian society. Second, he thought Keynes's economic theories appealed to a group far broader than economists primarily because of their link to his political approach.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Friedman|first1=Milton|date=1997|title=John Maynard Keynes|journal=FRB Richmond Economic Quarterly|volume=83|pages=1–23}}</ref>
[[Alex Tabarrok]] argues that Keynesian politics–as distinct from Keynesian policies–has failed pretty much whenever it's been tried, at least in liberal democracies.<ref>[http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/02/the-failure-of-keynesian-politics.html "The Failure of Keynesian Politics"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150416032545/http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/02/the-failure-of-keynesian-politics.html |date=16 April 2015 }} (2011)</ref>

In response to this argument, [[John Quiggin]],<ref>John Quiggin, [http://johnquiggin.com/2003/07/23/public-choice-marxism/ Public choice = Marxism] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141006125549/http://johnquiggin.com/2003/07/23/public-choice-marxism/ |date=6 October 2014 }}</ref> wrote about these theories' implication for a liberal democratic order. He thought that if it is generally accepted that democratic politics is nothing more than a battleground for competing interest groups, then reality will come to resemble the model.
[[Paul Krugman]] wrote "I don't think we need to take that as an immutable fact of life; but still, what are the alternatives?"<ref>Paul Krugman, [https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/living-without-discretionary-fiscal-policy/ "Living Without Discretionary Fiscal Policy"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170915204825/https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/living-without-discretionary-fiscal-policy/ |date=15 September 2017 }} (2011)</ref>
Daniel Kuehn, criticized James M. Buchanan. He argued, "if you have a problem with politicians – criticize politicians," not Keynes.<ref>Daniel Kuehn, [http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2011/10/democracy-in-deficit-hayek-edition.html Democracy in Deficit: Hayek Edition] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141011030954/http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2011/10/democracy-in-deficit-hayek-edition.html |date=11 October 2014 }},</ref> He also argued that empirical evidence makes it pretty clear that Buchanan was wrong.<ref>Daniel Kuehn, [http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2013/02/yes-lot-of-people-have-very-odd-view-of.html Yes, a lot of people have a very odd view of the 1970s] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150704085659/http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2013/02/yes-lot-of-people-have-very-odd-view-of.html |date=4 July 2015 }}</ref><ref>Daniel Kuehn, [http://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-significance-of-james-buchanan.html The Significance of James Buchanan] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150704001624/http://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-significance-of-james-buchanan.html |date=4 July 2015 }}</ref>
[[James Tobin]] argued, if advising government officials, politicians, voters, it's not for economists to play games with them.<ref>{{cite book|title=Modern Macroeconomics: Its Origin, Development and Current State|last1=Snowdon|first1=Brian, Howard R. Vane|date=2005|page=155}}</ref>
Keynes implicitly rejected this argument, in "soon or late it is ideas not vested interests which are dangerous for good or evil."<ref>{{cite journal|title=The General Theory of Employment, Interest And Money|journal=Nature|volume=137|issue=3471|pages=761|last1=Keynes|first1=John Maynard|date=1936|bibcode=1936Natur.137..761B|doi=10.1038/137761a0|s2cid=4104514}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Public Choice Analysis in Historical Perspective|url=https://archive.org/details/publicchoiceanal0000peac|url-access=registration|last1=Peacock|first1=Alan|date=1992|publisher=Cambridge University Press|page=[https://archive.org/details/publicchoiceanal0000peac/page/60 60]|isbn=9780521430074}}</ref>

[[Brad DeLong]] has argued that politics is the main motivator behind objections to the view that government should try to serve a stabilizing macroeconomic role.<ref>J. Bradford DeLong, [http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-retreat-of-macroeconomic-policy/ "The Retreat of Macroeconomic Policy"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151002134640/http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-retreat-of-macroeconomic-policy |date=2 October 2015 }}, ''Project Syndicate'', 25 November 2010</ref> [[Paul Krugman]] argued that a regime that by and large lets markets work, but in which the government is ready both to rein in excesses and fight slumps is inherently unstable, due to intellectual instability, political instability, and financial instability.<ref>Paul Krugman, [https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/the-instability-of-moderation/ "The Instability of Moderation" (26 November 2010)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170915204529/https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/the-instability-of-moderation/ |date=15 September 2017 }}</ref>