This article contains so much nonsense its hard to comprehend how this is not an attempt at satire.
It seems the anther has read some Keynes and has defined a whole new history around it.
I highly recommend people against reading this text, it represents the worse kind of historical rewriting and reinterpretation to serve the needs the person writing it.
I would also point out that a lot of the insights that Kaynes made popular and enjoyed wide popularity from the 1950 to 1970s has since gone away. The theories today called 'New Keynesian' really are far more evolution of 70s monetarism.
> Keynes’s development of the science of macroeconomics goes largely unacknowledged by a profession still
So all of this is wrong. In no meaningful way did Keynes develop the science of macroeconomics.
There were working on the exact same topics as him for a very long time before him. One might argue that he was the most well known macro economist in England at the time, but that's about it.
Furthermore, the idea that Keynes is 'unacknowledged' is unfathomably wrong. There are macro economics schools today that refer to themselves as 'New-Keynesian', 'Post-Keynesian' or 'Old Keynesian'.
> by a profession still steeped in classical microeconomics
I don't even know what he is referring to. Nobody does 'classical' economics since the 1870 (except some forms of Marxist economics).
It seems the anther has read some Keynes and has defined a whole new history around it.
I highly recommend people against reading this text, it represents the worse kind of historical rewriting and reinterpretation to serve the needs the person writing it.
I would also point out that a lot of the insights that Kaynes made popular and enjoyed wide popularity from the 1950 to 1970s has since gone away. The theories today called 'New Keynesian' really are far more evolution of 70s monetarism.
> Keynes’s development of the science of macroeconomics goes largely unacknowledged by a profession still
So all of this is wrong. In no meaningful way did Keynes develop the science of macroeconomics.
There were working on the exact same topics as him for a very long time before him. One might argue that he was the most well known macro economist in England at the time, but that's about it.
Furthermore, the idea that Keynes is 'unacknowledged' is unfathomably wrong. There are macro economics schools today that refer to themselves as 'New-Keynesian', 'Post-Keynesian' or 'Old Keynesian'.
> by a profession still steeped in classical microeconomics
I don't even know what he is referring to. Nobody does 'classical' economics since the 1870 (except some forms of Marxist economics).