IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jhisec/v38y2016i03p329-349_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Keynes, Mill, And Say’S Law: The Legitimate Case Keynes Didn’T Make Against J. S. Mill

Author

Listed:
  • Grieve, Roy H.

Abstract

Having in the General Theory quoted a passage from John Stuart Mill’s Principles as representative of ancient confusion, John Maynard Keynes has been accused of misinterpreting that passage and thus mistakenly identifying Mill as an upholder of the “classical” proposition that “supply creates its own demand.” Certain critics, seizing on Keynes’s misunderstanding, draw the conclusion that little was actually wrong with Mill’s analysis and that Keynes’s attack on Mill was therefore without justification. Our contention, however, is that, despite his error with respect, so to say, to the “letter” of Mill’s exposition, Keynes was right about the essential “substance” of Mill’s thesis. Mill’s thinking, we suggest, was deeply in thrall to the ideas of his father and Jean-Baptiste Say. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that Mill did indeed stand for a “classical” position, albeit qualified, but nevertheless vulnerable to Keynes’s critique as developed in the General Theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Grieve, Roy H., 2016. "Keynes, Mill, And Say’S Law: The Legitimate Case Keynes Didn’T Make Against J. S. Mill," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(3), pages 329-349, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jhisec:v:38:y:2016:i:03:p:329-349_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1053837216000031/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Roy H Grieve, 2016. ""Drop the dead donkey": a response to Steven Kates on the subject of Mill's fourth proposition on capital," Working Papers 1603, University of Strathclyde Business School, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jhisec:v:38:y:2016:i:03:p:329-349_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/het .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.