Sodomite economics

Mr John Maynard Keynes was a most clever chap. Unfortunately he had a character flaw. A very serious character flaw or sickness. I think you all know of what I speak. The love that dare not speak its name.

Now, many otherwise admirable conservatives of my acquaintance had this flaw too. I remember this fellow at my local League of Rights branch. A product of generations of graziers and a fine squire himself. A tough and rough and tumble fellow who could hold his liquor. Nonetheless there were various murmurings about his long and extended bachelorhood. Now, we all know it is sinful and brings distress to the eyes of our Maker. And as good conservatives when it is unearthed this sort of nonsense must be flogged to no end.


We must at least go through the motions of socially frowning on this stuff but not as far as those dreadful Mahometans with their stoning and such, which takes things to far too hysterical a level. After all, some otherwise good Tories have suffered from this sickness, like that Hebrew fellow who worked for the fine Senator McCarthy. Some artists as well. It may well be an artistic vice because these chaps, the artists and the sodomites, seem to be both stuck at some level of childhood which involves playing with clay or putty or what have you. It sickens the red blooded male to think of such things but I must soldier on because there is a point to all this.

When the fellow is redeemable in some way like an otherwise good conservative or opera librettist it is fair enough to turn the other way and leave things unsaid. Unfortunately Mr Keynes has performed no such service for society.

What implications do his sodomy have for his economics? Think about it.

These fellows are not likely to leave any children. Yes, some of them may claim they want to adopt children or have them through means as unnatural as whatever they get to in their dank and dark pubs. But that is all play talk. They fancy the idea like little boys may fancy collecting model cars. And it is all beside the point anyway.

The point is this - the taking it for granted that there are to be no descendants means that fellows like Mr Keynes can afford to take a short term view of things. And it was Mr Keynes himself who said 'In the long run we are all dead'. Well, yes Mr Keynes, in the long run we are all dead but not our children, or grandchildren, and their children and so forth.

And this is the reason behind the short termism of Keynesian economics. The budget deficits, the casual disregard for savings, the incapacity for delayed gratification which is a concomitant of its founder's own hedonistic lifestyle, the profuse squandering of the seedcorn. And that is why that chap I mentioned before from my League of Rights branch, though a good conservative, was unable to keep his family farm in good condition. That is why we need our economic thinking guided by robust, straight family men who dare say 'Yes in the long run we are all dead but the sacred trust between the born and the unborn must continue to be honoured'. And that can only be done through sound money and balanced budgets.