In the Long Run We Are All Dead PDF ↠ the Long Run


  • Kindle Edition
  • 432 pages
  • In the Long Run We Are All Dead
  • Geoff Mann
  • 08 March 2016

10 thoughts on “In the Long Run We Are All Dead

  1. Sebastien Sebastien says:

    Originally Mann thought he was going to write a book that deconstructed and eviscerated Keynes As he researched and wrote he shifted towards an agnostic position even bit sympathetic view on Keynes although he is certainly still torn in his positioning There is a lot to this book and I could write an endless review but I'll try and keep it to the very basics as I understood it It is wide in scope with an examination that stretches from philosophical historical political economic realms Densely thicketed at times but worth the effort and in my view the material is generally uite accessible Book is framed in 3 parts with a focus on the precursors to Keynesianism Pre Keynesian then Keynes then Post KeynesianismThe main analysis of the book is the focus on the crisis of modern day capitalism and the efforts and intellectual frameworks of the liberal reformist Keynes who wished to save it What crisis management policy tools should be implemented to avoid potential economic collapse and revolution? There is a lot of discussion on the dynamics between capitalism the state the bourgeoisie the masses civilization revolution and the role of Keynesianism in all this There is philosophical exploration involving a lot of Hegel which I thought was really fascinating especially the concept of necessity and the tensions in democracy and capitalism and the role of the state The concept of how to provide pathways to honor and dignity for those who live in poverty is richly explored The book features Keynes as critic of the system and yet ultimate believer in the system desperately wanting to reform it so that it can keep surviving and allowing civilization to thrive Keynes was a believer in a technocratic elite according to him it was this elite that kept the engine of civilization and culture going the thin veneer of civilization was a crust laying on top of a teeming darkness and this crust could easily be destroyed by the rabble And this isn't to say Keynes did not have sympathy for the masses but he certainly distrusted them and thought they were the potential destroyers of civilization That's part of the reason he felt society but most specifically the technocratic elite needed to find a way to create a framework to make capitalism work for the masses or at least provide pathways like decent jobs so that the necessities and basics of life could be met otherwise teeming resentment could destroy everything Misery breeds hate And then destruction if unchecked For Keynes one of the main avenues for the technocratic elite to walk tightrope in managing policy was figuring out how to expertly handle the policy levers via the state Keynes was a capitalist but recognized dangers of this mode if it was unfettered and rentiers and oligarchy hijacked the system Without sensible policyguardrails implemented via the only entity powerful enough to enact counterbalance the state he thought capitalism wouldcould implode and take everything else down with it The tension with democracycapitalism that Keynes seemed to struggle with was fear of tyranny of the masses and fear of tyranny of a rapacious oligarchy whose singular pursuit of profit could spin things out of control and warp the system And a 3rd fear he recognized was tyranny of the state he was no fan of the Soviet state which was a good example of this So there was potential danger in each elementA lot of the discussion on Robespierre and the French Revolution revolves around the problem of how to maintain honordignity of those in poverty philosophical analysis of necessity and also the dynamic of the struggle between the masses and the professional bourgeoisie and technocrats Robespierre does provide an example of how dark and off the rails things can go with a revolution even one founded upon liberal principles many examples since then of course and there is interesting discussion on the two major groups who were the engines behind the French revolution the masses and the bourgeoisie each had different goals and vied for power and control of the revolution The various interpretations of Keynes are explored Keynesianism means different things to different people and there are splits and Mann meticulously documents post WWII Keynesianism and its various branches I still don’t have a proper enough handle on this to deliver a good summary so I will need to read on it The discussions on the classical economists was also great especially on Adam Smith Say Ricardo and Malthus I really should read some of those original texts at some point Discussion of capital capital scarcity and how too much capital can flatten yields and drive down investment was something I'd never thought about I don't know too much about this issue but in the text there is mention that there needs to be some capital scarcity to maintain marginal capital yields that are sufficiently strong especially in relation to interest rates If interest rates are high especially in relation to marginal capital returns there will be less capital investment This part of the discussion focuses a lot on Piketty and Keynes who had similar interpretations on this issue I haven't read Piketty but probably will at some pointOverall this book is a great discussion interwoven with analysis of political economy philosophy tensions in society and the interplay between these various elements It's one of those books that I think could be enjoyed by those who don't agree with Mann or his ideas his presentation is interesting and thought provoking I could always be wrong about that but given the breadth of analysis I think there is enough here to provide appeal for a diverse audience although if one is a fan of unfettered laissez faire capitalism then this book will be a harder pill to swallow and I can imagine this is the one group who will have a harder time appreciating Mann's analysis and will likely contest large portions of it Even though I’m far from that positioning I'd certainly be interested to hear that critiue and how they would interpret this book I wish there were reviews of this book especially outlets like the Financial Times Martin Wolf for instance and WSJ it’d be fascinating to see how they parse this thing


  2. Ron Stoop Ron Stoop says:

    All in all a very refreshing look on the philosophy behind economicsIn the beginning the book tends to go offroad with occasional mentions of 'western hegemony' 'neocolonialism' and other conspiracy theories which put me off a littleAfter that he luckily goes back to discussing Keynes and the worldview of contemporary economics the so called liberal paradigm Especially his part on the absurdity of the homo economicus that is used as basis for many economic models was striking and apt Mentions of Kant Hegel and Marx are strewn around freely with varying success or perhaps I didn't get everything he was trying to say But this book definitely took me a few steps back so I could observe the PoliticalEconomic manifestations of our time outside the general framework drawn up by PoliticiansEconomists


  3. Stephen Stephen says:

    Fantastic Geoff Mann offers a wonderful critiue of Keynes and Keynesianism showing us why Keynesianism has an everlasting appeal in modern history and political economy especially in times of crisesMann traces Keynes back to Hegel arguing that both undertook the task of studying how to achieve peace and stability in a modern world of contradiction and anxiety in which Keynes continues this undertaking with his General Theory


  4. Stanisław Stanisław says:

    A very stimulating read Mann rereads Keynes's General Theory as a political manifesto of what he calls a Keynesian critiue of capitalism an orientation he traces back in figures such as Hobbes and Hegel and which today is represented by among others Thomas Piketty At the core of this worldview lies the fundamental belief that modern liberal society sows seeds for its own distruction Hegel's confilct between the particular and universal and Keynes composition fallacy are for Mann essentially the same thing What binds these two thinkers even is their relation to masses and revolution which can never be a successful event Masses themselves are not able to overthrow the liberal order that renders them poor and unemployed and therefore excludes them from the community of the free the burgeois civil society The revolution they seek to achieve is always destructive yet in principle justified since it is the imperfect system that is to blame for their miserable condition rather than the poor themselves Just as Keynes debunks the neoclassical myths of unemployment as always voluntary due to workers' reluctance to accept lower real wages which interrupts the working of Say's law Hegel also debunks one sided kantian ethics which underestimate the role of Notrecht the material necessity that knows no law and threatens the social order with revolution Mann engages with many different critiues of keynesian policies and thought stemming from radical leftist thinkers eg Negri and manages to explain the knee jerk resort to them in the times of crisis as they are indeed an indispensible component of modern liberalsm They enable us not so much to save capitalism from itself as is often said in relation to Keynes but rather to save the burgeois civilisation from existential threat to its stability which stems from it's central conception of freedom


  5. Alex T Alex T says:

    its insanely good you gotta read it


  6. Seth Seth says:

    In this text Mann provides a uniue genealogy of Keynesianism as a political philosophy and approach to political economy To him Keynesianism is perched on the precipice between liberal principles of freedom and the popular demands of subsistencenecessity and its primary concern as a political philosophy is saving civilization from the tensions that liberal civil society endogenously produces whether that be absolute poverty unemployment or ineuality as well as the attached crises It is therefore a reluctant but immanent critiue of liberalism in theory and practice in that it produces its own self destruction He traces this content from Robespierre to Hegel then to Keynes himself and then onward into its successors post Keynesians new Keynesians and beyondMann's case is persuasively built argued from a clearly careful engagement with the source material of Keynes' collected works Further the final chapter is a fabulous piece of writing touching on a really serious crisis within a global left that and seems to have lost the battle and lacks a strong vision of a way out Despite the breadth of problems and dearth of answers Mann does not want to lapse into excusing the current capitalistimperialist world system and Keynesianism's redemption of that system by extension He merely wants to provoke serious critical thought by recognizing the limitations that the Keynesian worldview widespread than one might realize has imposed on our political project Mann's writing in general is excellent accessible enough for a cursory reader but packed with rich detail for those familiar with the material I learned uite a bit about Hegel through this text maybe even than Keynes in specificThat does point to one factor that weakened my engagement however the book is so stuffed with content it becomes exhausting Mann is to be commended for his rich understanding of the history of political and economic thought incorporating insights from over three hundred years of both disciplines if they can truly be regarded as distinct Keynes might object But that saturation with allusions to all kinds of Marxist liberal and Keynesian theory can become rather wearing especially when Mann starts repeating himself the thesis is laid out early on and isn't strongly contestable except on semantic grounds The only other issue is that in its third part a lot of the economic content from StiglitzShapiro and Piketty especially becomes rather obfuscatory The sections on The General Theory are so effectively explained that it was odd how impenetrable these dry economic sections became towards the end of the bookAside from those minor uibbles I'd have to give a strong recommendation especially for those who are familiar with and interested in the history of political and economic thought and want an innovative approach to the disciplines


  7. Olan McEvoy Olan McEvoy says:

    I picked this book up after previously reading Mann’s book written with Joel Wainwright on the climate crisis “Climate Leviathan” which I found to be interesting but not entirely convincing I definitely had a similar reaction to this book as while I find Mann to be a very enjoyable writer with a massive knowledge of fields as varied as political economy philosophy and geography I can’t say I was entirely convinced by the book Mann provides a left critiue of Keynesianism which while being critical of the basis and effects of Keynesian economics and policies is sympathetic than you would initially think Essentially Mann describes Keynes’ project as motivated by a “dialectic of hope and fear” about the future of civilisation and that this search for security and order in the face of chaos is part of all Keynesian outlooks This broad idea allows Mann to classify not just the usual schools of thought that came after JM Keynes as Keynesian but also to go back before his time and to even classify Hegel as the original Keynesian in political thought This post revolutionary Mann focuses almost solely on the French Revolution anxiety that motivated Hegel’s Philosophy of Right is seen by Mann to be the same concern that motivates Keynes’ General Theory This leads Mann to spend around 100 pages of the book discussing the French Revolution and it’s relation to Hegel’s political though While his take is interesting and novel I found it to be a bit of a detour in a book that’s about Keynesianism Mann is a very honest and nuanced thinker which is definitely something to be applauded He is willing to admit the failures of the left and always points out where left critiues fall short which for Keynesianism appears to be most of the time The book is an easy read albeit a bit long and can be uite a nice introduction to ideas which critiue one of the dominant forces in our societies


  8. Caleb Caleb says:

    In our own twenty first century moment the effusive embrace of Piketty indicates that anxious Keynesianism is alive and thriving Modern political economy has always been Keynesian in this sense haunted by the memory of revolution and upheaval and thus by a consciousness of the menace of popular rejection of the existing order but convinced the right tax tweak or policy fix has the capacity to put off disaster so we can focus on economic bliss once The term 'tour de force' is overused but appropriate in this case Mann does what few have done a symptom of our know nothing know it all age? He actually read Keynes' General Theory The result is a deep and impressive intellectual history of Keynes and Keynesianism from the French Revolution to the present it makes sense Even though I'm not entirely on Mann's ideological plane the scholarly insight on display here is thrilling to read He articulates the intellectual roots and operating assumptions of Keynesian technocracy in a way that resonates with our populist present in which the 'universal class' of enlightented technocrats has less popular legimacy than at any time since the 1930s and is grasping pretty baldly for power to save us from the 'rabble' In fact reading this book during the recent US election was a lot of fun It is an important book to think alongside wherever you come from Mann seems like the kind of open honest and humane thinker who is becoming increasingly rare in contemporary academia He writes with verve and enlivens politicial philosophy to make it deeply pertinent


  9. Differengenera Differengenera says:

    keynes is read here as one of the originators of a liberalism capable of understanding or at least aware of the possibility of catastrophe the than outside chance that good stuff might not go upwards over time but things might just continue to get worse mann opts for an unorthodox way of demonstrating this; i'm reading zevin book on the economist atm and the treatment of keynes and keynesianism in both couldn't be distinct while zevin focuses on keynes his moment his intellectual formation how his ideas were and were not put into practice for mann keynesianism begins with robespierre and hegel and we get extensive treatments of both before getting to keynes than robespierre of course we get a consideration of what he represents left catastrophe of stalinism and for some reason as well pol poti've always been a bit frustrated with the keynesianism that i have engaged with its most prominent advocates seem to be very comfortable establishment heads who talk past or ignore critiue and rarely seem to ask themselves why it is that states never mash on the 'one neat trick' button part of the reason that this seems possible is the conceptual fuzziness regarding what states as opposed to others actually have access to the levers of their own economies and i can't help but think that this comparative philosophical means of treating keynes blurs things further rather than clearing them up


  10. Spoust1 Spoust1 says:

    This book does three things first it places Keynes‘s views of capitalism within a broader historical context which most notably includes Hegel the first Keynesian says the author; second it provides a detailed but easily digested account of Keynes’s main ideas based on a close reading of his original texts and finally it develops a left critiue of Keynes — basically the view is that Keynesians are concerned about social disorganization and distrustful of mass movements in such a way as to be ultimately undemocratic — while also opening up the radical left to an informative critiue from the Keynesian perspective


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In the Long Run We Are All Dead[PDF / Epub] ✅ In the Long Run We Are All Dead By Geoff Mann – Thomashillier.co.uk A groundbreaking debunking of moderate attempts to resolve financial crisesIn the ruins of the 2007–2008 financial crisis self proclaimed progressives the world over clad to resurrect the economic t A groundbreaking debunking of moderate attempts to resolve Long Run MOBI · financial crisesIn the ruins of the – financial crisis self proclaimed progressives the world over clad to resurrect the economic theory of John Maynard Keynes The crisis seemed to expose the disaster of small state In the ePUB ½ free market liberalization and deregulation Keynesian political economy in contrast could put the state back at the heart of the economy and arm it with the knowledge needed to rescue us But what it was supposed to rescue us from was not so clear the Long Run Kindle Ñ Was it the end of capitalism or the end of the world For Keynesianism the answer is both Keynesians are not and never have been out to save capitalism but rather to save civilization from itself It is political economy they promise for the the Long Run We Are eBook Ê world in which we actually live a world in which prices are “sticky” information is “asymmetrical” and uncertainty inescapable In this world things will definitely not take care of themselves in the long run Poverty is ineradicable markets fail and revolutions lead to tyranny Keynesianism is thus modern liberalism’s most persuasive internal critiue meeting two centuries of crisis with a proposal for capital without capitalism and revolution without revolutionariesIf our current crises have renewed Keynesianism for so many it is less because the present is worth saving than because the future seems out of control In that situation Keynesianism is a perfect fit a faith for the faithless.