All $50+ Orders Get Free Delivery
Free shipping on all orders over $50
7-15 days international
11 people viewing this product right now!
30-day free returns
Secure checkout
57576323
(Apology: My understanding of early 20th century British history is not fully up to speed..)I thoroughly enjoyed reading the book. It reads well and balances a history of the man with the context of his historical contributions. I was and remain averse to the Keynes legacy. But I appreciate the man a little more after reading the book.I understand the man and his work better, and I can see the influences and the psychological backdrop that led Keynes along his path. To me, ultimately a “Hegelian desire for recognition” brought Keynes to his major turning point and his Economic Consequences of the Peace in 1919. I did not see Keynes as an Economist at this stage in his life. I saw him more as a journalist or writer with a conscience on an undercover mission. First, it was to do what he thought was right and to reveal the political machinations his idealist mind witnessed at the Versailles Peace Conference. Second, it was to redeem himself in front of his Bloomsbury Group peers, who saw him as a turncoat for the suits in Government. Keynes’s 1919 book might have been by some as something akin to Edward Snowden dumping reams of confidential memos and data on the internet. And it made him a hero with others.The chapter on his personal life, his liaisons, was somewhat interesting. But the Lover chapter was also the one I enjoyed the least. I wasn’t into the semi-secret societies and male love intrigues, although I understand they are important to the context of Keynes’s “story”.What I missed in the book, and would have appreciated would have been a full chapter on the economics of Keynes. I think such a chapter would complete the book – especially if it worked more at the psychology behind the ideas as well as a closer education on Keynes’s process of changing his views. I get that he changed his views as the times changed, and as he interpreted the fallacies in the UK post WWI socio-political system.I can see as well that he was a man limited by the times he lived in. He wasn’t necessarily a visionary ahead of his time. He was the epitome of his time. At least from what I can see from the book, Keynes did not really see the end of empire until it hit him in the face when he began working with American negotiators as part of the British government teams shuttling back and forth to Washington DC during WWII.What I also missed in the book is that Keynes is shown never to have had an equal to measure his intellect against. But we know that Keynes and Hayek held a famous dialogue through an exchange of letters, and that Hayek and the Austrian School had a few words to say about Keynes’s work, although Hayek is flagged for not having issued a critique of the General Theory (It is speculated that Hayek delayed because he expected Keynes’s thinking to evolve as it had in the past and the General Theory would be an intermediate step to further work, as previous work had been). This entire discussion was not mentioned anywhere. Not in the footnotes. Not in the bibliography. Keynes and Hayek appeared to have points on which they agreed, and issues on which they disagreed. It would have been good to have the same author detail these, and potentially other similar issues.Keynes’s involvement with the Bloomsbury Set (p. 253) is likely the fulcrum of Keynes’ss life. It was where his core relationships were and where he drew his deepest desire to make his mark on the world. His “desire for recognition” (ie, Hegelian desire…) arose out of their chiding and his desire to “reclaim his standing” (p. 255). At the same time his Economic Consequences of the Peace, the work that shot Keynes to fame, was driven by Bloomsbury’s forcing Keynes to challenge his employer, the government, and its policies (p. 271).Finally, the last few pages of the last chapter, Envoy, begin a new direction on where Keynes was heading post WWII, a time when the formation of the Modern State was in full swing in countries that were deemed free and on whose behalf Keynes had toiled to influence the set-up of economic systems. But as the American government rolled into action post war (who, after all, appeared to have well read their Keynes), he saw the IMF, World Bank get established, and Bretton Woods envelope currency systems around the West. And his first responses appeared to oppose these institutions’ initial direction and American imprint. We get a taste of his initial outrage. But there is no link to understanding how his thinking could have evolved. Could Keynes have shifted to more anti-establishment after seeing how the establishment used his ideas?Ultimately we are left with the case of the intellectual becoming a man of action inside government. I had the opportunity to look at this issue in my study of Alexandre Kojeve – a Hegelian and sometimes Marxist eventually named “Kojevian” and an early Eurocrat given his early contributions to the creation of the Treaty of Rome. My early read of Kojeve was that he combined theory and action. That he was an intellectual who eventually put his money where his mouth was. But what I have realized more and more over the years is that most of these exercises have created Frankensteins. The European Community’s vision in theory was appealing. But in practice it is poorly implemented at best.Keynes’s work on “universal” currencies appears in context of the formation of the IMF. But given his initial disaffection for the American control of the process, could we have seen a development toward an early understanding of the fallacies of trying to align national currencies with economies running at different growth rates and producing different levels of quality and quantity of output?Additional reading/wishlisthttp://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/03/keynes-and-hayekhttp://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAAahUKEwj67Ye0xpjHAhWCFJIKHVfTCR8&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpublic.econ.duke.edu%2F~bjc18%2Fdocs%2FWhy%2520Didn't%2520Hayek%2520Review%2520General%2520Theory.pdf&ei=RnjFVfqyH4KpyATXpqf4AQ&usg=AFQjCNE8NqF_Mx1hmgrIBma5sBVjYzhn9Q&bvm=bv.99804247,d.aWwAngelica Vanessa Garnett: Deceived with Kindness (1984)A diverse read that takes us into various avenues of Keynes' mind and life. Doubtless the author hoped to tie together the many loose ends of Keynes life into a cohesive whole, but I'm not sure he was successful. For example, Keynes' sexual proclivities relate more to his Cambridge and Bloomsbury connections and play no part to his substantive impact on 20th (and 21st) Century economics. I found this chapter particularly odd, almost like a single book-end that doesn't really hold up the flow of any part of the book. But the writer helped me come to appreciate the man and his extraordinary times, and his role as the quintessential public servant, called upon to help solve intractable problems. You come to realize his stature dwarfs the likes of Krugman and Stiglitz; I dare say he would shudder to hear them speak his name in public. A true Liberal, Keynes would still shun the Socialists now ruling and teaching in elite universities around the world.Not an interesting read -- you probably won't enjoy it.Socio-economics is a somewhat vague subject and this is a vague treatment written by someone who shies away from real explanations probably for good reason. I don't think the author understands economics well enough to tackle Keynes because the latter and his subject never came alive here. The book keeps reiterating that Keynes was a genius but that doesn't show up -- even his statements are vague and nothing to hang your hat on. If he was in fact so brilliant as people of the time seemed to think why was he not heeded at for instance the disastrous reparations imposition after WW1. He correctly asserted that they were too onerous and if his advice had been followed we may not have had WW2 but the book skips over important things such as who (obviously with a heavy agendum) overrode him on that issue. He clearly wasn't the decision maker and his advice counted for nothing. I was hoping for more behind the scenes mechanics on who pulls the strings when someone like Keynes is appointed as the expert but has little effect. Later he is clearly frustrated trying to stem the tide of the British Empire sinking into oblivion as the American century progresses but I think ultimately Keynes made the same mistake as Marx by treating men as they should be and not how they are, His Edenic balance would never and still hasn't become manifest. but of course this review is supposed to be about the book and not about Keynes' views (which I only half agree with) and at the end of it I'd learned quite a bit about his sex life but not much more.Quite disappointing.This is an excellent biography. It concentrates on the human side of Keynes character and as a consequence is very revealing. It also is very good on Keynes' role at the Paris Peace Conference and the background to his brilliant publication against the Versailles Treaty, "The Economic Consequences of the Peace." The book is equally attractive in its treatment of Keynes' role in the arts, his views on Government, Art and the purpose of the study of economics. And above all this is a very well written book.I have been collecting material by and about Keynes for more than 40 years, and this is the most satisfying of them all. The author deals at length with important aspects of Keynes's complex life, his professional activities and personal relationships, Though less-detailed than Sidelsky's admirable three-volume biography, this book is far more pleasant to sit down with of an evening without reader indigestion; yet it includes anecdotes, references and exposition much more easily approached than in the other volumes on my Keynes Shelf. It has been interesting to check material in this fine book with Moggridge, Harod, Skidelsky et alia, and I have never had the impression that Davenport-Hines has short-changed me.Richard Davenport-Hines (RDH, 1953-date) is an English historian, and this book is seven sketches (altruist, boy prodigy, official, public man, lover, connoisseur, envoy) of the “climate” of Keynes' life. I didn't enjoy it. Familiar with Keynes' life and work, I'm uncomfortable that it says too little about Keynes as an economist.It's true RDH was writing against the background of monumental studies of Keynes by economists (e.g., Moggridge, Sir Roy Harrod, and Skidelsky) and at times he shows good historical feel e.g., writing about the Bloomsbury group or Keynes's work as an envoy in the USA, … but the portrait isn't rounded. As well as being a polymath leading a fascinating life, Keynes was a very great economist … who wrote wonderfully. For my taste RDH's portrait fails because e.g., it doesn't flesh out Keynes' arguments during the Great Depression (see “Essays in Persuasion”), it doesn't showcase his superb writing style, it understates the sublety of his thinking about investing (chapter 12 of “The General Theory” is not mentioned!), it understates his work on probability and monetary theory, it mis-hits when referring to (Keynes' questionable arguments about) the "Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren" (a 1930 essay). The book isn't chronological, and deals with a huge tapestry, but I was disappointed not to hear more about e.g., Frank Ramsey, Sir Dennis Robertson, Wittgenstein and Sir Isaac Newton. I was surprised by the brevity of comments about Lydia Lopokova.As an alternative: try Milo Keynes' excellent edited “Essays on John Maynard Keynes”. Published 1975 it's not dated badly and gives the more rounded view I prefer.The Cambridge 'geeky' intellectual, who remained a lifelong Apostle - the world-famous economist, who inaugurated a new economic-political era and a new international trading system - the highly persuasive senior Treasury official - a key member of the Bloomsbury group - the ferociously active homosexual, who married a Russian ballerina - an inspirational, if formidable, Cambridge don - and the 'titan with heart disease, fighting daily [during 1944-45], at ... exhausting conferences, to save impoverished, war-wrecked Britain from being driven into bankruptcy by the Americans'.Davenport-Hines endeavours to do justice to each of these seven aspects of the intuitive genius who was Maynard Keynes, and mostly succeeds. The biographer writes lucidly and with wisdom. Throughout, K shines as 'a disciplined logician with a capacity for glee who persuaded people, seduced them, subverted old ideas, installed new ones ... He was England's paramount example of the scholar as man of action.'K was an urbane Edwardian, at home everywhere because of the confident breadth of his intellect, and because he was sure that his patrician optimism - the enduring product of Eton, King's College Cambridge, and the elite Apostles and Bloomsbury groups - was good for the world.Davenport-Hines is an unashamed admirer of the late Victorian creation of a committed, 'socially elastic' and impartial 'governing order that was one of the glories of history ... [which] represented the acme of civilised organisation', ie the British civil service (!). The writer conveys something of the mystique of this broadly uncorrupt and long-termist cadre when he adds that 'One could feel pride in being governed by such men.' K was very much one of these clubbable 'ins', no matter how much he appeared at times to be an outsider.No anachronistic apologies here for gender bias or paternalism, though there is (insufficient) acknowledgement that these high administrators 'disdained entrepreneurship', and 'spread timidity, low productivity and economic failure.'Indeed, the whole of K's economics can be seen as providing the intellectual justification for empowering the emerging class of high-minded technocrats 'as a new brand of world leader' - leading to the post-war belief (ridiculed decades later in the penetrating satire of 'Yes, Minister'), that the 'man from the ministry' knows best, and he (or occasionally, she) will correct the social and economic imbalances brought about by short-sighted, selfish businessmen and politicians.Under K's brilliantly argued and relentless assault - starting with his disarmingly penetrative 'Economic Consequences of the Peace', and culminating in his revolutionary 'General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money' - the swash-buckling Victorian age of more or less unrestrained free markets came to an end, and was replaced by the more compassionate, albeit bureaucrat-dominated, era of the managed economy (both at home and internationally) ... which turned out to be perfectly fitted both for war and for the 'Butskellite' socialism of the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s.The new Keynesian orthodoxy was that in times of unemployment, government investment in infrastructure should remedy underinvestment and increase domestic demand. Meanwhile, free trade must be maintained, but within a framework of permanent regulations and controlled exchange rates. While this placed great power in the hands of the emerging new world order of international institutions, K also inveighed against the habitual secrecy of policy-makers and had a 'touching optimism' that these elite technocratic globalisers (a breed of far-sighted sages, not unlike himself) could correct wild swings in economic activity.An iconclast from the age of 40 (when he rejected 'classical', pure free trade economics), K fought against persistent illusions, such as the belief that Britain was a trading nation which exported manufactured goods to pay for food and raw material imports: in fact, between 1822 and the 1930s the national trade account had been in deficit every single year. Banking, shipping and earnings from foreign investment ('invisible earnings') accounted for the overall favourable balance of payments.As he said to a banker in 1924, 'I seek to improve the machinery of Society, not to overturn it.' He deplored the harmful aspects and inefficiences of capitalism, but was very far from having any sympathies with socialism and was not interested in what became the welfare state: 'individual initiative was to him humane: it enriched character ... the arts ... as well as enterprise' He realised, though he regretted, that a return to the Edwardian age was impossible: 'We used to think that private ambition and compound interest would between them carry us to paradise' - a typically succinct and witty appreciation of the need for change, in order to preserve the governing order.However, it is not the big picture perspective in which this portrait shines - Davenport-Hines is consciously not trying to compete with Robert Skidelsky's intellectual, tour de force, three volume biography - but in bringing to life the human side of K. Alongside the policy-maker we see K's intimate and habitual inter-connections with the Bloomsbury group, in whose houses or arms he relaxed from the rigours of trying to persuade the world to adapt to new realities. Davenport-Hines gives us a convincing portrait of K the multiple-man - and the research and breadth of reference is masterly - though I would have liked more revealing anecdotes.The long 'Lover' section can be tedious, with the recounting of so many homosexual trysts by 'the iron copulating machine' - which is how James Strachey described K to Rupert Brooke after seeing K's 'statistics of his sexual conquests between 1906 and 1915'. Davenport-Hines does not speculate why K should have compiled, and then shown to his gay friends, such a list. Nor does any but the briefest mention of love or its close relatives, tenderness and affection, enter into the tale of K's sex life with men. However, hints of strong emotional engagement are given in the reluctantly approving section on K's affair and marriage (in 1925) to the exotic, coquettish and ultimately reliable, Russian prima ballerina, Lydia Lopokova. Against the odds (and against the prejudices of Bloomsbury) the marriage was a success, as both parties submitted with good grace to the necessary degree of mutual happiness and toleration (and Lydia unselfishly gave all her attention to K). Though Davenport-Hines claims that 'marital contentment narrowed his outlook and temper', it is not clear what the author means by the narrowing of K's 'temper'.The 'Connoisseur' section, supposedly about K's art collecting, is largely a too-detailed account of his social life, post-Bloomsbury.In the final section, 'Envoy', Davenport-Hines describes how K battled for a new and benign capitalist world order which would be constrained by currency rules (policed by the IMF), with post-war reconstruction financed by the body which came to be known as the World Bank - the marriage of European liberal intellect with muscular American generosity. Of course, K did not create these bodies alone, and was very much the equal partner of US luminaries Harry Dexter White and Dean Acheson. Anglo-American mutual animosity and misapprehension went hand in hand with creativity, and it was very hard work, especially for a man with cardiac disease.Frank Lee, a member of the UK Treasury delegation praised his 'matchless chief' in December 1944: 'occasionally he over-played his hand and occasionally wore himself out struggling for points which were not worth winning. But in general ... his industry was prodigious, his resilience and continual optimism were a constant wonder.'The result was a resounding success: the Bretton Woods system devised largely by Keynes and White lasted through to the 1970s, when the Monetarism of Milton Friedman partially took over.Simultaneously, in the final months of 1945, K rendered one final service, which was particular to the UK: he negotiated a huge loan from the USA, which replaced the wartime lend-lease arrangements. This was achieved despite a wide gulf between the allies: Britain was exhausted, broke and expected that the USA would waive its enormous debts; while the victorious USA saw no reason to subsidise the British Empire. With ministerial authority, K had already agreed the convertibility of sterling by the end of 1946 (later deferred to 1947). Against strong opposition in the USA and (for the opposite reasons) at home in the UK, K negotiated a loan of $3.8 billion (equivalent to $56 billion in 2014 values), at interest of 2 %, to start in 1951 (this debt was finally paid off in 2006!). In addition, about 85% of the lend-lease debt was cancelled. K thought that the deal was, on balance, a good one, and was dismayed by the rough ingratitude of most of his compatriots (who failed to realise how weak Britain was and that US hegemony was here to stay). Furthermore, without American money, the Atlee government's programme of industrial nationalisation and creation of the National Health Service would have been impossible.K spent his last reserves of strength arguing vigorously (and successfully) in favour of the negotiations in the House of Lords and in the press, against a battery of imperialists, socialists and Daily Mail populists. He made one more trip to Washington, where he collapsed. He returned to Britain where died at home of a heart attack in April 1946, having selflessly sacrificed himself by overwork.As there are extensive and detailed biographies of Keynes there was no point in producing another life of equal length. Instead, Davenport-Hines has written a concentrated and accessible portrait of this multi-faceted and influential economist. It's for those looking for an introduction to his life, for others a starting point for further research. It's for anyone interested in the Bloomsbury group - he was one or its founder members, and also for those who frequently hear the term 'Keynesian' and want to know what ideas and history lie behind it. Davenport-Hines has chosen to create an impression of a complicated life rather than to give us yet another a detailed record of it. Using a more recent approach to biography, he takes various themes - or lives - running through Keynes's life and devotes a chapter to each. Some reviewers have found this more fluid approach confusing; for me, it's a very practical way to deal with an historical figure who was so protean in many different if overlapping fields of human endeavour.The first chapter is a brief introductory summary, painting Keynes as an altruist throughout his life. The second deals with his education at Eton and Cambridge, child prodigy in the former, brilliant Apostle in the latter, where he met Strachey and Woolf. Cambridge lay the foundation for many of his abiding ideas about the good life, the cultured and civilised society. The third chapter sketches his rise as a government official and his growing influence as a young tyro, particularly his role during and directly after WW1. It sketches his life as a civil servant who had the ear of those in power. Keynes was also a great joiner or leader of committees and clubs and societies; he was a journalist, broadcaster, lecturer, he had fingers in many pies, and this, his more public role, is dealt with in the fourth chapter. The fifth chapter - 'Lover' - has attracted more prurient interest, mainly because it outlines the numerous gay affairs he had as a young man - notably with Strachey, Grant and Garnett within the Bloomsbury Group - and with many others from all walks of life, He had a healthy, unashamed appetite for causal sex as well as for more sustained gay relationships, at a time when it was illegal. Yet he surprised all his friends when in middle age he fell in love with the ballerina Lydia Lopokova: their marriage was genuine, long lasting and loving - Davenport Hines acknowledges Lydia's care for her husband in his later years (he had a heart condition) which probably prolonged his life considerably. The sixth chapter deals with his active role in promoting the arts: he helped found the Arts Council; he was instrumental in creating the Arts Theatre in Cambridge (a portrait of him and Lydia can be seen in the theatre today); he took every opportunity to promote 'civilised values' through arts institutions and broadcasting and in his writings. The final chapter moves us back to politics and economics, giving us a sense of the life-sapping negotiations he led with the Americans after the war that formed the Bretton Woods agreement, so crucial to Britain's survival at a time when we were almost bankrupted as a nation. These overlapping shifts of emphasis build up a picture of a remarkable man, one of the most influential of his age.This is a popularising, introductory biography, It's not intended to be a cradle-to-grave account, and it would be wrong to criticise it for not covering the ground exhaustively. If you want that, go to Robert Skidelsky's work. I came to it as a result of doing a short course on the Bloomsbury Group, and it was adequate for my needs. Despite containing a lot of material beyond my interests, I skipped nothing because Davenport-Hines never loses sight of the needs of his general reader.I already had admiration for MK, but Davenport-Hines' compelling biography filled out the compexity and brilliance of the man. Think what you like about the 'darker' sides of his character, but there is no argument over his achievements. We could do with someone like him now. Some of the vignettes of his relationships, his Edwardian upbringing and his passions for art and truth and reality are wonderful. For me, with a great interest in the Bloomsburys, this book will be a reference.Probably not for everyone but for someone who studied economics at Keynes' university shortly after his death and remain a (slightly reconstructed) Keynesian it was a pure joy. Although I have kept abreast of the biographies of Keynes, this account of his other lives was refreshing and increases my admiration for him. How could one man keep so many balls in the air and keep a diary of much of it?
