Talk:John Maynard Keynes/Archive 6

Keynes is a probability theorist by any reasonable definition of the category
Someone (no registered username) is continually removing the "Probability theorist" category. Please stop. Bertrand Russell (not exactly a mathematician incapable of recognizing "axiomatic systems") reviewed him. But really, the point is not whether or not a Wikipedia editor likes "A Treatise on Probability" or that others may have competing theories, or even definitions. What next? Austrian schoolers arguing that Keynes is "not really" an economist? Doprendek (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we have here a problem of terminology. Someone who has contributed significantly to probability is not necessarily referred to as a probability theorist. The term, as normally employed, means someone whose main preoccupation is the Theory of probability. Another point to consider is that it would help your case if you could find Keynes in a textbook on probability theory. By the way, if you could find the book of Bertrand Russell, it would certainly add to the article if you could provide a quote from it. I sympathize if you cannot find the book. I have often had the same problem myself, because Russell wrote so many books and essays. Garfield Garfield.


 * I moved your comment for clarity, I hope this is OK. Now: 1) "Someone who has contributed significantly to probability is not necessarily referred to as a probability theorist. The term, as normally employed, means someone whose main preoccupation is the Theory of probability." By this definition, Pascal is not a probability theorist. Nor is Poincare. Most importantly, this kind of narrowness is not used in general for Wikipedia categorization. One must only show that Keynes contributed to probability theory. Which he did. 2) "By the way, if you could find the book of Bertrand Russell, it would certainly add to the article if you could provide a quote from it." The work (a review) is cited and linked, with a quote, in the main Treatise on Probability article. Where did you get the idea there was no citation? 3) "Another point to consider is that it would help your case..." etc. I consider the "case" to be made. I also have no wish to fight over this again, the first time was rather unpleasant, as you might be able to tell from the exchange, and I don't see why it's up to me to argue against what are in effect new standards for Wikipedia categorization. Doprendek (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

can you please point me to the passages in his book that show his work abiding by any axiomatic system? russell was much more a philosopher. these are cowardly statements. please show me how his claims line up with the theory.

and i'm not a nameless user. i'm actually quite accomplished and smarter than you (if you read my edits, you'll know why). obviously you're not interested in that. your'e interested in defending incorrect statements. laplace was a probability theorist, as was kolomogorov and jacob bernoulli.

it is not easy being a probability theorist, you degenerate. i am also fortunate to be a probability theorist, and i do not agree that keynes is one. only you're saying that.

australian schoolers? i'm a mathematician you clown. start showing some formal rigorous arguments instead of word salad and walls of text. i expect it or i'm calling a mod. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.213.121 (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

adding another bit: who is the say ANY ECONOMIST is a probability theorist? do you even understand the difficulty of probability theory, or are you just so neutralized to the nonsense that comes out of economics that you think whatever they do is probability theory? like, get it through your head: economics is NOT science, and by extension, the lack of scientific BASIS of keynes' theories almost instantly disqualify his work from qualifying as probability theory. if his economics work was truly probability theory, he would have made falsifiable claims that could have been tested rigorously by means of statistical analysis.

i love how economists think they are mathematicians or qualify as mathematicians. you do not. you did not take the proper math classes. you took half-assed mathematics courses under the umbrella of "mathematical finance" and now you're trying to educate me, after you were taught bullshit.

get it through your damn head: mathematical finance is a JOKE. ABSOLUTE JOKE. by extension: i'd love for you to prove the basis of financial derivatives, if you're so bold as to make claims that keynes is a valid probability theorist because he was REVIEWED BY A PHILOSOPHER. PHILOSOPHERS ARE NOT PROBABILITY THEORISTS (UNLESS THEY ARE THE ELITE MATHEMATICIANS MENTIONED ABOVE).

do not force me to flash my credentials, which will clearly establish that i have deep knowledge of the field of probability theory, with STATISTICALLY RIGOROUS DEMONSTRATIONS using REAL WORLD DATA. yes i am that good, and i hate showing that, but clearly you need to be put in your place, peon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.213.121 (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Can anyone inform me of the process for dealing with weird and scary "editors" like those above? Are they allowed to do this with impunity? Doprendek (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * there's a reason no one is saying anything. and they are watching, believe me. it's you who is causing the issue. you're forcing me to bring in a mod because i would have broken the three revert rule. go learn mathematics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.213.121 (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no knowledge about your content dispute, but would like to say to the anonymous user (174.3.213.121) that you are clearly behaving in an rude, aggressive and non-collaborative way. Please try to stick to the issue no matter how frustrated you may be, or you will be blocked from editing no matter the merits of your case. Please have a look at WP:CIVIL for behaviour guidelines. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * you know what's more rude? economists and "mathematical finance" people acting like they know math, when they clearly don't. i would like to get some resolution to this issue. considering i am among one of a handful of authorities in the field, i have every right to revert. the editor's belligerence has forced me to use the talk page as i would be running risk of the three-revert rule. again, considering my merit in the field, i find that the applicability of the three-edit rule in situations such as this is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.213.121 (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keynes has published work on probability theory. Wikipedia values published sources. It does not value the personal opinions of editors, particularly when they use abusive language as you have. Maproom (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * it seems you're incapable of understanding english. i asked for proof. not your word salad. published work means nothing if the reviewers themselves are not versed in the area. bertrand russell was most definitely not a probability theorist. you can continue your nonsense defense or provide evidence. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.213.121 (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * addendum: while browsing this trash book (http://archive.org/stream/treatiseonprobab007528mbp#page/n153/mode/2up), i find it HILARIOUS that this is even considered probability theory!! HOW is this probability theory? this man even has the nerve to cite leibniz lol. obviously none of you are going to accept reality willingly, but that's fine. there was a reason that, back in sir isaac's day, there were MUCH fewer individuals doing "research". this work is a primary illustration of the danger of "constructive mathematics" (which is what this work is trying to pass itself off as). it is an insult to what david hilbert was trying to do. and the fact that maproom defends this garbage book is further illustration of how non-experts can believe anything they want to. this book is riddled with confirmation biases and an arbitrary design. in reality, probability has no subjectivity. even looking at the probability interpretations, it's quite clear,even from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_interpretations, that keynes INTENDED for his work to be objective. that in no way means his work was objective. maybe you could consider him a probabilist, but he is most definitely not a probability theorist. this entire book is full of anecdotal evidence and weak examples which have no real application to general settings. comparing this book to dr feller's probability theory, it is quite clear that keynes has no idea what he is talking about. only the people in the area of "mathematical finance" and economics will defend this trash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.213.121 (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems you didn't bother to read the guidelines on civil behaviour, so I again encourage you to both read them and follow them. All of this bluster and ad hominem attacks serves little purpose if you don't make a rational argument based on specific sources. If you're such an authority on the subject it shouldn't be hard for you to cite a few reliable sources to support your argument which others can then respond to and discuss rather than trading insults. Peregrine981 (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the opinions of some Wikipedians, A Treatise on Probability is a widely respected and often cited work on the philosophical foundations of the concept of Probability. DaveApter (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And incidentally, Keynes was one of the most highly qualified mathematicians of his time. DaveApter (talk) 09:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on John Maynard Keynes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091124021328/http://www.moreintelligentlife.com:80/node/824 to http://www.moreintelligentlife.com/node/824

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

all work made by John Maynard Keynes is PD
On April 21, 2016, marks 70 years since John Maynard Keynes died, so all his works is now under public domain

source Keynes passed away 70 years ago today

--WiZaRd SaiLoR (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

For goodness's sake caption the photo taken by Dorothea what's-her-name as a portrait of Florence Owens Thompson
The woman in that photo had a name and a life before, after, and outside that frame. Lange is mere conduit. "Migrant Mother" is Lange's title. Keep all that, if you will, but the IDENTIFICATION of the photo, i.e. what it IS, is not its title. It's the subject's name. How many portraits of Queen Victoria are titled "John Q. Smith's portrait of some female monarch or other that shows what a monarch lived like back in those days"? Victoria's portraits are captioned with Victoria's name. How is Florence Owens Thompson any different? The omission of the subject's name is EXTREMELY offensive! Artists don't rule the world (much as I'm sure that they, like any other discipline, think they should)!2604:2000:C682:B600:2196:82A8:54A0:41BA (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
 * By the way, there seems to be some chatter on this page that Bertrand Russell was not a mathematician? Are you kidding? He was a mathematician, and if he says Keynes made a valuable contribution to Probability Theory, that is not automatically right but it's going to take a deeper reading than can be gone into in WikiP for me to think it wrong. The mere fact that Russell SAID such a thing is encyclopedia-reportable even if it has been or can be refuted.2604:2000:C682:B600:2196:82A8:54A0:41BA (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
 * Wow, i had no idea that caption was EXTREMELY offensive. Ive changed the wording and it is my sincere hope that you will eventually recover from the offense. My prayers go out to you.  Bonewah (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John Maynard Keynes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150822072052/http://www.stephenperse.com/resource.aspx?id=1666 to http://www.stephenperse.com/resource.aspx?id=1666
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616040146/http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=31&item=biography to http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=31&item=biography
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121002144221/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/keynes_jm,2.html to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/keynes_jm,2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

"The advent of the global financial crisis of 2007–2008 caused a resurgence in Keynesian thought. Keynesian economics provided the theoretical underpinning for economic policies undertaken in response to the crisis by President Barack Obama of the United States, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom, and other heads of governments.[10]"

What absolute rubbish of the highest order. Ok so I go to link to find out who wrote this garbage and it no longer exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.239.1 (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Lord Keynes.jpg

Hayek on Keynes
I don't know how relevant this is, but here's a quote from Hayek's 1984 interview in which he speaks of Keynes.

https://www.cato.org/policy-report/mayjune-1984/exclusive-interview-fa-hayek

Q: You taught with Lord John Maynard Keynes at the same university, did you not?

Hayek: I taught at his university while he was advising government. We at the London School of Economics were evacuated to Cambridge for the whole World War II period, and Keynes got me rooms in his college. But he was most of the time advising governments, so we met only occasionally on weekends. We were personally very good friends.

He had the illusion that a little inflation is good. Too much, no. He was one of the cleverest men I knew, but he was not really a very competent economist at all. He had strong intuitions, which sometimes were right, and the strong conviction that he could put over any theory that he invented to justify his particular recommendations. He was a very great man, but I don't think he was a great economist. Ե րևանցի talk 21:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

No citation
However, the advent of the global financial crisis of 2007–2008 and the COVID-19 pandemic sparked a resurgence in Keynesian thought.

This statement has no citation and is highly arguable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.209.50 (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * agreed. see Robert Skidelsky, "What Would Keynes Say Now?" Project Syndicate March 20, 2020 Rjensen (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Parts of the market stayed irrational despite those crises. Keynes said (decades ago) that "Markets can remain irrational a lot longer than you and I can remain solvent." (from A. Gary Shilling, Forbes (1993) v. 151, iss. 4, p. 236). It's not found in the Talk archives. If notable, it could be added. TGCP (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Material copied to Tariff article
An IP editor copied a large section from this article to the Tariff article without proper attribution, so doing on their behalf:

--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)