While Austrian economists from Ludwig von Mises to Henry Hazlitt to Murray Rothbard have dealt with the various fallacies that John Maynard Keynes laid out in The General Theory and other works—and they are legion—only Rothbard chose to deal with the philosophical/moral aspects of Keynes’s viewpoints in Keynes, the Man, and he finds that these viewpoints indeed influenced his economic thinking. …
Yet, both Rothbard and Hunter Lewis—author of Where Keynes Went Wrong—indicate that the anti-savings and pro-free spending views that dominate The General Theory have their roots in the moral worldviews that Keynes held. Rothbard notes that one of the driving forces in Keynes’s economic worldview was,
…his deep hatred and contempt for the values and virtues of the bourgeoisie, for conventional morality, for savings and thrift, and for the basic institutions of family life. …
So, why claim that Keynesian economics is immoral? It is because Keynesians economists claim that by creating new money and increasing spending, the government can create new wealth that will spur economic growth. That is a lie, period. As Murray Rothbard has noted, new money creation and borrowing and spending simply transfers wealth from those who are in line to receive the new money from those who will receive that money much later. To add insult to injury, the recipients of the new money generally are wealthier than the people who have wealth transferred from them. That is because the first in line for new money see a rise in their incomes but pay for goods at the current prices.
However, as the new money works its way through the economy, prices increase, so those who are at the “back of the line” will pay the higher prices but will not see the same increase in their own incomes. This is where the wealth transfers take place, and there is nothing mysterious about it. The economy may seem to be “stimulated,” but the inflation actually undermines the economy.
Given Keynes’s arrogance and his contempt for savers and the British bourgeoisie in general, it is not surprising that he would advocate an economic system built upon fraud. Furthermore, given that Keynes’s views mirror those of American, British, and European elites, no one should be shocked that they would endorse the Keynesian schemes. “Immoralists,” as one might expect, will support immoral economics.
So, here we are now, after suffering the state’s romance with Keynesian economics, with a collapsing economy due to changes in time preferences and no reserves for productive investments. Keynes’ “Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die,” philosophy has been the hallmark of how the state sees itself as running the economy and we are suffering for it. Is the Keynes philosophy moral or immoral? I guess it depends upon how you look at the results of high time preferences: spendthrift, forced bankruptcies and criminal behavior because people need it now and not later. A good example of high time preference is the looting of stores during riots. If you like Keynes, you’ll probably like looting, right?