JMK, as I understand it, advocated paying benefits to unemployed and possibly other disadvantaged groups. One wonders if his being openly Gay was all part of a campaign to bring attention to minority groups.

Pure speculation, perhaps, but his economic arguments were one of the original reasons governments began to pay benefits to disadvantaged groups which before that was the exclusive domain of charities.

It is not so much that he is Gay, but rather he was a part of a group that undoubtly the victim of much prejudice. Did this influence his thinking, his arguments, his scratch my back I scratch yours philosophy to economics?

I am not sure if the author of the original comment that gave reason for you to question his motives thought of all this BUT, its interesting and possibly valid.

Who knows.

But the question remains what does Gary’s heterosexuality have to do with a an article about economics and how Gary attempted to relate it to Deaf people?

If he wrote specifically about sexuality or even referenced it, then yes, I can understand the reason for mentioning Keynes sexuality.

One last point, no one ever points out writers heterosexuality now do they?

PRECISELY!

JMK probably did have sexual liasons with some deaf guys and created such sympathy for lesser fortune individuals without any safety nets or family inhertiance to hold on.

I really never knew about JMK’s sexuality until I read somewhere few weeks ago.

Everyone’s own sexuality, educational and cultural background and other more things often shape us who and what we are all about.

I have a mixed feelings about the Kenysian economics anyway.

RLM

Tony quite rightly pointed out that JMK being gay was not relevant to the topic. I thought the comment interesting and the analytical part of me wondered how much it shaped JMK thinking over the years.

But as Tony said JMK being gay is not really relevant to anything in the article.

Still thanks for your well thought out comment.

A lot of disability groups in Australia are banging their heads on the wall seeking almost the same outcome as Deaf and hard of hearing people. We see Government ‘invest’ into intervention programs, addressing pensior issues etc but the need of people with disabilities often is the last on their agenda.

I think this post gives us a different angle for us to consider and perhaps a different tactic to approach the powers to be and the society we are in.

While the may not be deaf specific, still think it is relevant to us.

Another way of thinking outside the square.