Keynes is self contradictory, he's not the most unambiguous of writers, a particularly bad case of the two armed economist.
And as the parent pointed out, there are both anti-Keynesian theories, and there are also many post or neo-Keynesian theories. There's lots of things, and this doesn't concern itself with any of them. Which is fine, you can write what ever you like, I just don't like seeing it on HN.
I don't like seeing on HN because there can not be good discussion from it.
Economics is just complex and interesting enough that geeks easily get into it, have that great light bulb moment of understanding, and immediately start opining about it, long before they've reached a deeper understanding.
It's akin to someone understanding Newtonian physic, being elated about getting it, and getting into internet arguments with people who understand the theory of relativity.
And you can't explain the differences between Newtonian and relativistic physics in a short post And the time required to explain it to random Joe on the internets, is just not worth it.
I think what you mean is that because political economy is closer to dogma than to natural science, rational discussion focused on discovering objective truth is just a waste of time. Economical political decisions are made by men to serve other men, and should be adjusted accordingly not to be incontestable dogma supported by spikes of intellectual masturbation. Eppur si muove!
No, arijo, biohacker42 didn't say anything close to "rational discussion focused on discovering objective truth is just a waste of time". It's just your idea, and a stupid idea to boot. I downvoted both of your comments accordingly.
Disussing dogma is a waste of time and energy. Economic decisions should focus on solving real people problems in pragmatic terms (in an agile way if you wish). Elaborate intellectual theories, though eye-candy, do not stand on firm reality grounding (think of Locke's madman concept - one who makes impeccable and rigorous reasoning based on flawed data and assumptions). That's all I was trying to express in my comment above.
And as the parent pointed out, there are both anti-Keynesian theories, and there are also many post or neo-Keynesian theories. There's lots of things, and this doesn't concern itself with any of them. Which is fine, you can write what ever you like, I just don't like seeing it on HN.
I don't like seeing on HN because there can not be good discussion from it.
Economics is just complex and interesting enough that geeks easily get into it, have that great light bulb moment of understanding, and immediately start opining about it, long before they've reached a deeper understanding.
It's akin to someone understanding Newtonian physic, being elated about getting it, and getting into internet arguments with people who understand the theory of relativity.
And you can't explain the differences between Newtonian and relativistic physics in a short post And the time required to explain it to random Joe on the internets, is just not worth it.
Thus good discussion is impossible.