Peter Clarke (1)Besprekingen

5223. Hope and Glory Britain 1900-2000, by Peter Clarke (read 9 Jan 2018) This book does a good job telling of English history from 1900 to 2002. I found it consistently interesting although some of the data on intricate English statistics is not readily comprehensible to somebody like me who has never lived in England. The book does not deal with British foreign affairs to any great extent, but is very concentrated on British politics and how events affected English life. For instance, the events of the two World Wars which occurred outside Britain are not closely reviewed. But that was OK wih me and I found the account of the political events in Britain after 1945 full of interest and informative in a way that we in the USA are not usually told about. But if British politics interests one, as it does me, this book is a winner.

I received this book for free as part of LibraryThing's Early Reviewers program.

This is a fun little book, and by little, I mean just long enough to cover the life of John Maynard Keynes, while still clocking in under 200 pages, not counting endnotes and bibliography. I find the life of Keynes fascinating, and I genuinely learned things by reading this biography. For example, Keynes' literary friends in his Bloomsbury circle were genuinely mystified that he chose to marry a ballerina. Also, he and his wife wanted kids, but suffered from infertility.

Yet, I'm not sure I can really recommend this book. I've had this book for eight years, and I've read it three times trying to review it. I think the problem is the material is not quite chronological, and not quite topical, but rather a kind of stream-of-consciousness combination of the two. It makes it really hard to form a coherent picture of the life and times of Maynard Keynes, which is the only reason I want to read a book like this. I took to making notes in the margin to document what year an event happened, so I could reconstruct a timeline of events that are close in time but spread across chapters.

If you just want a fun read with a few facts sprinkled in, then this probably won't bother you. On the other hand, if you like to place things in perspective, then this book makes that unnecessarily hard.

While indeed Peter Clarke does indeed cover a wide spread of events, and in that sense is a huge book, I believe that he does go into so many details that, after a while, I started to lose the plot.

I lost the plot in the sense that i was wondering how all this lead to the end of the British Empire. He did not bring about a good analysis of all these events, and their interconnectedness.

The Palestine and Indian issues were, in my view, glossed over.

All in all, a detailed book. Yet, I was not that much wiser at the end

A brief biography of Keynes. Not terribly familiar with him or economic theory and reading this seemed a decent way to remedy that. If you are looking for something in depth or very academic this may not be the book for you. However, it is written for an adult audience and the author doesn't mind spending time on some of the technical issues Keynes had to deal with.

I won this off goodreads, which just goes to prove that those get a free book competitions actually give out free books. That said, this was pretty blah. Clarke's a very nice writer, so it's easy to read. But that's about the best I can say- the biographical stuff was fine, but there was very little about the Fall or Return of this Influential Economist. And the book doesn't really explain why he was so influential until the last chapter... and even then doesn't do a very good job. Was his major innovation really convincing people that investment could lead to savings rather than the other way round? Really? The *General Theory* gets all of two pages. I'm sure there are better biographies; I hope to hell there are better intellectual biographies. But it's short enough to read in an afternoon, and I'm encouraged enough that I'd want to read other things written by Peter Clarke which require a little less explanation of complicated ideas, i.e., his history of 20th century Britain.

Did the Empire begin to fail with the loss of America? What about the Irish Easter Rising of 1916? Wasn’t that a strong signal that the end was nigh?… To this list so many, many other historical events that foretold the fall might be added, but this book ‘The Last Thousand Days of the British Empire’ by Peter Clarke concentrates on that last coda that saw out Britain’s great civilising force for good in the world (as the British saw it). Within that circumscription the author tries to select a few key nails that finally fixed the lid in place.

Peter Clarke chooses as the ‘last 1000 days’ the period from September 1944 until August 1947. That fateful September was the month that Churchill met Roosevelt in Quebec and admitted that Britain had no money to run its Empire. Other matters were discussed of course: the war was going well, military matters had to be decided and this was the conference where the partitioning of Germany, and other future political strategies, were agreed. But money matters took up a sizeable part of the proceedings. America had already forked out a lot of cash towards winning the war and the common grumble in the US was that the country was ‘being taxed of thousands of lives and billions of dollars to save the British Empire’. So it was that Churchill’s frank admission that Britain was financially broken that occupied most of the discussions. The outcome between the ‘co-equal’ allies was that the US Treasury was in effect given control over the British balance of payments by agreeing to extend the Lend-Lease arrangements, already in operation, into the post-war period. This then was the future: Britain and her Empire was in hock to the Americans, had been for some time and definitely was now, in the light of the agreements undertaken at that Quebec conference.

Moving onwards towards the very last of the ‘thousand days’, by December 1946 the writing was on the wall as regards the ‘jewel in the crown’ of the Empire, India. There ensued conferences and committees and hearings and parliamentary debates but the outcome was never in doubt and the date for British Departure from India finally was set for June 1948. In fact, power was handed over on 15 August 1947 and Peter Clarke sees this as the day the sun finally set on the British Empire. In his words:”The King had to get used to signing himself George R. and not George R. I., like his father. He did so a few days later in a letter to his mother, Queen Mary, who noted on the back of the envelope: ‘The first time Bertie wrote me a letter with the I for Emperor of India left out, very sad.’ “

Very sad indeed, And If the British had any shred of Churchillian self-delusion left as to being a ‘world power’ it was dispelled when they were lumped in with the rest of ’Europe’ by the Americans in the subsequent negotiations for aid from the Marshall Plan. There was to be no more trading as ‘The British Empire’, and no reference whatsoever was made to the ‘Special Relationship’ which Churchill believed had been built up between the Allies over the years prior to, and over the course of, the war. As far as President Truman was concerned his General, Marshall, was to deal with Britain as just another of those European countries which, now that America had won the war for them (again), had to be helped out of the financial hole they had dug for themselves.

A great read, even though the author strays a bit here and there and gives us rather more details of the various theatres of war than we really need to have. He is really, really good on conveying the personalities of the huge number and range of the politicians and apparatchiks involved in this great ‘winding down’ of Empire or, as some would say, reluctant withdrawal from other people’s countries.

A very excellent short life of Keynes, written accessibly.

An astute study of a major figure in modern economics. I admit to having had to take a few initial cracks on it, but after the initial slog of thirty pages or so, it becomes a good read for those with only a passing interest in economics.

This was a Early Review edition. I will have to admit that this this is one of those books that I had to take a couple of shots at. It was a book written by an English intellectual about an Englist intellectual so it probably didn't have much of a shot at being exciting reading to begin with, but the writing style and the story construction didn't really help me stay involved either. I stuck with it because I do believe that John M. Keynes was an importantant enough factor in a critical part of American (and world) history that is worth trying to understand the underpinnings of his ideas. In the end I must say I am glad I did stick with it. The ideas that fueled the Roosevelt's New Deal were derived from this man's ideas and we still are struggling with the implications of his policies. I think I will probably try to read the last few chapters again eventually. It is a small book filled with a lot of big ideas.

James Meek, a British writer and journalist, has chosen to discuss , Peter Clarke’s “The Last Thousand Days of the British Empire", on FiveBooks (http://five-books.com) as one of the top five on his subject - The Death of Empires, saying that:

“…It’s a very sad story. It’s more despair than anger, and most despair at Winston Churchill. It’s a bleak portrait of the prime minister. His obstinacy with regards to India, his belief that purely through his charisma he could keep Britain as a world player alongside the Soviet Union and America. …”

The full interview is available here: http://thebrowser.com/books/interviews/james-meek

This was a good introductory work on someone I've been hearing a lot about in the news, but didn't know much about. As a non-economist, I was able to understand why Keynes was (and is) so important. The author seems to be a fan of his subject, but didn't descend into hero-worship.

This biography provides a concise history of Keynes's life, as well as a general introduction to his economic theory--a helpful feature, considering the density of Keynes's "General Theory." For the lay reader, this is a clearly written and fascinating snapshot of "the 20th century's most influential economist", and provides helpful suggestions for further reading in his works cited. Clarke is well aware that this brief biography is in no ways meant to be definitive, and appropriately tailors his study for the novice to Keynes.

This biograhpy of John Maynard Keynes is a timely look at one of the most influential economists. Arguably, with the Chicago school in decline following the current recession and the abandonment or reconsideration of much of the Chicago school's thought, Keynes is the most respected economist of the modern age. Certainly, he is the source of much of the current thought on the need for government spending to restart economic growth.

The biographical portions of the book are the most interesting. Keynes led an interesting life both in academia and government. Clarke also gives us a sense of the remarkable circle of friends that Keynes enjoyed.

The explanation of Keynes's thought was less helpful. Clarke demonstrates aptly that Keynes said and wrote enough contradictory statements on economic theory to provide ammunition for arguments about who is the true Keynesian for decades. Thus, there is little in the way of a coherent course of action.

Clarke's book does an admirable job of detailing this giant of economic thought but ultimately fails to provide the reader with an understanding of what lessons we should have learned from him.½

This is a book that i received from ER. I know very little about economics and this book suited me well as an intro to keynesian theory. It was especially interesting considering the current economic times. I suspect this book would be a bit simplistic for someone well-versed in economics, but it read well for me.

NIcely written short introduction to Keynes, with brief but interesting glimpses at his life and career (both academic and in policy/government). For those who already have a background on Keynes, this may be a bit lightweight, both on detail and analysis, but for the uninitiated, a good place to start.

For readers with little or no prior knowledge of macroeconomics or John Maynard Keynes, this is not a bad place to start. British historian Peter Clarke has written an extended essay (at 180 pages, closer in style and content to a New Yorker profile than to a full-scale biography) that assesses the historical and contemporary significance of Keynes, his life, and his economic ideas. The writing is accessible and non-technical. Clarke's audience is educated readers who have heard of Keynes, particularly in the context of the current economic crisis, and wonder why this long-dead economist continues to be talked about.

I think Clarke succeeds in explaining Keynes's significance, but it's necessary to read the entire book to get the full picture. Clarke's introduction and first two chapters focus largely on the man, rather than his ideas. There's nothing wrong with that; Keynes was a fascinating individual. A cultural and intellectual giant in British society in the first half of the 20th century, he was a core member of the Bloomsbury crowd that included Virginia Woolf, Vanessa Bell, Lytton Stratchey and others; a philanthropist who used his earnings as a writer and financial speculator to support the arts; and a popular intellectual whose comments on public policy could not easily be ignored by governments in Britain (or even the United States) between the wars.

It's in the second half of the book (chapters three and four and an epilogue) that Clarke addresses the economic ideas and theories that made Keynes famous and influential. The going gets tougher here, but Clarke is dedicated to making Keynes's ideas as clear and understandable as Keynes did himself. The economic problem of the day, and the focus of Keynes's economic policy recommendations, was the high and persistent unemployment that plagued Britain throughout the interwar period. Clarke ranges across the body of Keynes's published work, rather than just “The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money” (1936), his most influential book, to trace the evolution of Keynes's thought.

Breaking with the laissez-faire economic orthodoxy of his day, which offered no solutions for unemployment, Keynes and his students developed a new, comprehensive model of the economy (creating the field that came to be known as macroeconomics) and demonstrated that the markets are not, in every case, self-correcting. Responding to severe shocks, markets eventually will find an equilibrium between supply and demand, but that equilibrium may be at a high level of unemployment. Increasing aggregate spending (investment and consumption) can reduce unemployment, but businesses and individuals, lacking confidence in the future growth of the economy, may choose instead to hold on to their money. Even reducing nominal interest rates to zero may not be enough to re-energize spending. Keynes, therefore, postulated a role for government, to stimulate spending through fiscal policy. His preference was investment in public works, though he did not rule out the usefulness of tax cuts and other measures to increase consumption.

Keynes's view that government can play a role in correcting market failures was heavily criticized in his day but ultimately became the new economic orthodoxy. In the first instance, his ideas received their warmest welcome in the United States, where a number of New Deal programs used federal spending to create jobs and stimulate investment. Roosevelt was not a Keynesian; his economic ideas, such as they were, were more in line with classical laissez-faire theories. But as Keynes recognized after meeting Roosevelt in 1934, the president's finely-honed political instincts told him that something must be done to address the country's severe economic problems, and he was willing to experiment and to adopt whatever policies worked to put people back to work. This appealed to Keynes, who also was not adverse to changing his mind and striking off in a new theoretical direction if a better solution to real problems was to be found there. Clarke suggests that this was perhaps one of Keynes's great strengths, though it opened him up to charges of inconsistency by his critics.

Since the severe inflation of the 1970s and the rise of Milton Friedman and various forms of laissez-faire economics, Keynesian ideas have lost considerable credibility with the (American) public. But there was little debate among economists and policy-makers in 2008-2009 about what to do when economies around the world were on the verge of catastrophe. Remembering what happened in the Great Depression, governments stepped in promptly to prevent the collapse of the financial system and keep credit moving. Subsequently, stimulus measures were enacted, as Keynes proposed, to raise aggregate spending, create jobs, and restore macroeconomic stability at a “normal” level of unemployment. As a result, unemployment reached the serious level of 10 percent, but got nowhere near the 25 percent rate the United States suffered at the height of the Great Depression. And the financial system did not collapse, as it did in 1933, raising hopes that the economy will not fall as far and as hard this time. The legacy of Keynes's economic analysis and policy prescriptions had more than a little to do with that.

Clarke only briefly touches on the implications of Keynes for modern economic policy. For more on that, and for a more in-depth examination of Keynes's economic theories in a brief form, see the new book by Keynes's major biographer, Robert Skidelsky, “Keynes: The Return of the Master” (2009). Of course, for a REALLY in-depth look at Keynes's life and work, see Skidelsky's monumental three-volume biography: “John Maynard Keynes: Hopes Betrayed, 1883-1920”; “John Maynard Keynes: The Economist as Saviour, 1920-1937”; and “John Maynard Keynes: Fighting for Freedom, 1937-1946” (1,658 pages in all).

This is a fairly short book about Keynes, one of the most infleuntial economists. Peter Clarke includes a helpful index, endnotes and a bibliography. What I liked about the bibliography was that he placed an asterick on books that he recommends to the reader for further information. For people looking for more information, this was a great addition. The author also does provide some visual aids which I always like, especially with biographies because you can meet the man you are learning about.

Although this book does provide some helpful information about Keynes that I didn't know before, it still felt too short. Almost like a long introduction. This book, would be a great introduction to Keynes and for people who just need an overview of the man and the times he lived in. For people who are needing deep research, this book would not be for you. However, taking a gander at the bibliography may help those readers some.

Overall, this was a good book, just could have been a bit longer with more information/detail.½

After having read The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, and The Economic Consequences of the Peace, I got very little from Peter Clarke's book, Because of the recent economic turmoil, and the collapse of the myth of self regulating capitalism, Clarke has produced a short summary of the policy of government intervention and stimulus to avert or cure depression.
The book seemed to me to be rather an introductory essay: a bit on his life, and kudos for his achievements. (The discussion of his sexuality was quite unnecessary in my opinion).
As an unreconstructed Keynesian, who has battled the Milton Friedman monetarists for years, I am happy to see Keynes getting some of his due. However, the fears in America of socialism and government intervention do not bode well for our escape from the current economic downturn. I think it would take another Keynes, and a Franklin Roosevelt combined, to set us on a better course. The disparities in income, and the current hardships being suffered by the recently laid off or foreclosed upon, do not seem to penetrate the hard hearts of the beiievers in laissez-faire capitalism. The future looks bleak to me.

FWIW and from a non-economist's point of view. What attracts me to Keynes and this particular book about him is the ideas put forth of a kind of on the ground situational and pragmatic way of running an economy as opposed to the theoretical purist way of thinking of self correcting market based capitalism. As well my tendency is to look at corporations particularly multi-national ones with a great deal of suspicion. More or less this was a fact finding thing for me--though I'm fairly certain that the fact gathering from it is incomplete (which is not necessarily a criticism of the book but more my own unfamiliarity with technicalities of the field altogether). Keynes ideas distinct from say Friedman/Rand at least seem to argue for some kind of balance in wealth disparity which I consider necessary for a healthy society. Differences and distinctions aside individuals shouldn't become so wealthy that they become unreachable within the societies they've engendered from--and to go further that I believe firmly that any individual's right to amass wealth should not supersede the rights of the majority of people to make a living that allows them to buy a home and to raise a family. Keynes seemed to be going down the road of a broad society wide prosperity which is worth being commended for.

As for particular lessons that may be applied today in these depressed times--he believed acting pragmatically to forestall ill effects was important--that not acting at all and allowing things to run their course only made things worse. He believed taxes and spending projects on public works programs was a way of jumpstarting an economy back on the road to recovery. He believed that there was a time to set theory aside for action and that theory in any case is often blunted by situations and side effects peculiar to any give time and by nature are dependent on optimum conditions--have no way or device for calculating the chaotic ups and downs of life lived. He believed that government could have a positive impact on a people's economic lives and that programs such as public works were one way to do it. He believed the more people working the better off the society was--and I agree with all that.

As far as the book goes I had a bit of difficulty. I don't think Mr. Clarke was really all that technical as far as the subject matter goes but still for a novice on the subject such as myself it was still more than technical enough. The other thing was his British version of English at times had me reconstructing his sentences to try to get at what he was saying. In that respect I was glad that it was of fairly short length--180 pages--maybe not enough for someone else but plenty for me. I would recommend it though. The fact is I can be very opinionated about things I haven't really studied on all that much and so it was a little bit of fuel for the fire.½

Pretty good. This grew out of an essay/op-ed in the 8 Jan 2009 FT. Provides a good brief look at the fascinating life and harrowing times of JMKeynes, with a bit on his reputation.

A few factoids and quotes:
- the return to the gold standard was one of the precipitating causes of the General Strike.
- "So unlike me! I, perhaps, am too ready to take pleasure in feeling that my mind is changed; you too ready to take pain." (JMK to Denis Robertson)
- "The whole of mathematics is a truism and truisms help to clear one's mind." (JMK was a math major.)

The recent financial near meltdown has rehabilitated the reputation of John Maynard Keynes, says Peter Clarke. Keynes was the man, after all, who long ago said that, “When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill done,” a forecast that surely seemed prescient by October 2008.

The crisis produced a fiscal stimulus – the one I am thinking of is the rush of a few publishers to quickly issue new books about Keynes. I read Clarke’s because the publisher provided me a free examination copy through a LibraryThing lottery. It is less than 200 pages in the body and is definitely a good selection for readers that wish to catch-up on Keynes but do not have either the time or the stamina for Robert Skidelsky’s full three-volume biography (published between 1994 and 2001). Another possible new-issue choice, which I did not read, is Skidelsky’s own single-volume Keynes: The Return of the Master.

Clarke is a former Professor of Modern British History at Cambridge who has written two previous books about the Keynesian revolution in economics. In this new volume he covers many essentials, including an overview of Keynes’ shifting reputation from 1920 to the present, biographical highlights, Keynes’ economic policy ideas, and core elements of his economic theory. In an epilogue he considers how Keynes’ insights have been put into practice (or not) in both Britain and America and how we can still benefit from his thinking.

Keynes once remarked that an effective economist must also be a “mathematician, historian, statesman, [and] philosopher” and “must understand symbols and speak in words.” He describes himself. He was a notable public figure from the appearance of his The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919) until his death (1946), a skilled writer and arguer for his positions, often a representative of his country in international economic negotiations. He was a central figure in the Bloomsbury group, broadly engaged in the arts and generous in his support. In the end he was a highly successful investor, though his fortunes fluctuated wildly at times.

Clarke gives special emphasis to how Keynes’ ideas developed from 1929 through the 1936 publication of his magnum opus, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. He recounts in some detail Keynes’ participation and influence on the Committee on Finance and Industry (1929-1931), a group appointed by the British government to provide policy guidance to deal with the depression. Beginning in 1931, Keynes also participated with a discussion group at Cambridge known as the “Circus,” including both established and younger economists. Out of these experiences several of his core ideas took shape and matured.

Clarke covers several of Keynes’ key concepts in lay terms that will appeal to most readers (no need for mathematics). He claims “the seed of the Keynesian revolution in economic theory” is the recognition that thrift (savings) does not determine enterprise (investment), but rather enterprise determines thrift; savings is not the dog, but the tail. He provides clear explanations of Keynes’ ideas about the stickiness of wages, multiplier effects, the limits of monetary policy, infrastructure spending, budget deficits, and the role of expectations in shaping economic outcomes, for example.

Clarke believes there is no “timeless Keynes,” that his thinking shifted in reaction to the times in which he lived. The one constant was “a lifelong commitment to the strategy of institutional reform through reasoned argument.”

For a work such as this that seeks to summarize the contributions of a distinguished thinker, it is probably a compliment rather than a criticism to say that one would like to have heard more on certain subjects. Two teasers in particular caught my attention, where Clarke surfaces some interesting assertions but does not develop them in any depth. In America, Clarke suggests, Keynesianism became identified with budget strategies to stimulate consumption, whereas Keynes’ emphasis was on investment. Clarke notes, too, that there is an “oddly Keynesian twist” to the “supply side” notion of Reagan era economists that tax cuts would be more than recouped because of the economic growth they would supposedly stimulate.

Clarke’s dedication page is inscribed, “In the long run, for my grandchildren,” an obvious reference (and refutation?) to Keynes often quoted remark that “in the long run we are all dead.” Less well-known is Keynes’ 1930 essay "The Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren," which Clarke touches on just briefly here. In it Keynes envisions that higher productivity could mean either more consumption or more leisure for everyone. He preferred the latter, speculating that by 2030 the English would work only 15 hours per week because their material needs would be satisfied and they would see the love of money as "one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities." To the dismay of many, this is one forecast where he is likely to be well off the mark.