Here is a typical defense of Keynesianism, this time from the Nation. The central assertion is: “Keynesianism…is not a perfect guide to economic reality, but it has proven a better one than any available alternatives…” Note the word proven. Apparently there is proof. But, if so, why doesn’t the writer offer some? Why does he just assert that Keynesian is proven but actually offers nothing more than a glancing reference to one IMF study which does not even seem to support his thesis?
Why is it that Keynesians just assume their case and almost never argue it? The reason is that there is in fact no case to be made, no proof, no logic, no convincing evidence. Keynesianism is faith-based, not evidence based, and name calling about ” discredited Depression era mantras” won’t cover this up forever.