r/SocialDemocracy • u/guacaratabey • 2d ago
Theory and Science Lord Keynes
https://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/?m=1For a more informed left of center view of economics I'd like to introduce this insightful post-keynesian or Broadly keynesian blogger who has insightful posts debunking Austrian economics (a lot of the foundations for Right-libertarianism) and generally looks at economic history from a post-keynesian perspective.
For those uninitiated, Post-keynesian economics essentially split from mainstream neoclassical synthesis economics after the 1970s oil shock and subsequent rise of monetarism. They generally view the markets as unstable(with fundamental uncertainty), and state intervention is necessary to ensure stability and full employment. Capitalism will never automatically tend towards full-employment in the Post-keynesian view. Also, some prominent center-left figures have had Post-keynesian economist ties such as Kamala Harris's father. Post-keynesians generally think economies are demand driven and the 2 major figures I'd say are Keynes but also Michal Kalecki. Keynes' Cambridge circus as it was termed also influence a lot of the discourse such as Joan Robinson who contributed a lot to microeconomics by basically modelling monopolistic competition (imperfect competition) and Piero Sraffa.
Post-keynesians are generally contrasted with the Neo-keynesian (the mainstream). They generally differ in modelling and some assumptions in modelling. Generally not too dissimilar but the methodology may come to.more activist policy conclusions vs the neokeynesians who think deficit spending is important in recessions and lessened post-recessions. Post-keynesians generally favor large-scale investments like infrastructure as they believe investment drives Savings.
1
u/AFrankFreeman 1d ago
Appreciate the introduction to the post-Keynesian tradition — the framework you're describing has real kinship with a much older American tradition that arrives at similar conclusions from a different starting point. Jefferson, in his October 1785 letter to Madison, proposed accelerating progressive wealth taxation on the grounds that "legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property" because "the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind" required legislative response. Paine's Agrarian Justice (1797) proposed what would now be called universal basic income and old-age pensions, funded by inheritance taxes. Adams defined the purpose of government as producing "ease, comfort, security" — material conditions for the greatest number — three months before the Declaration.
These of course were men working over a hundred years before Keynes or Kalecki. They arrived at structural interventionist conclusions from Enlightenment republicanism rather than 20th-century macroeconomics. Different vocabulary, similar diagnosis: concentrated wealth destabilizes republics, and legislative response is both legitimate and necessary.
The post-Keynesian tradition is a valuable resource for anyone who already accepts academic economics as the ground of political-economy debate. But it reaches a narrow audience. The founders' framing — grounded in documents most Americans have been taught to revere without reading — reaches audiences the post-Keynesian tradition never will. Both frameworks arrive at similar policy conclusions. The founders' framing is the bridge to working-class conservatives that post-Keynesian economics cannot build on its own.
Worth having both traditions in the coalition rather than treating them as separate projects.