In the last post I noted that it seemed like Pete Boettke was excusing himself from the discussion - "never mind them... they're illusionists, distorters, not in the mainline of Adam Smith, ideologues, etc."
I guess Don Boudreaux is throwing in the towel too. He writes: "Keynesianism isn’t economics; it’s a rejection of economics"
Well I guess that settles it!
Don goes on to lecture us Keynesians on the fact that... well... that the economy produces lots of different things. Oh - and microeconomic forces are important.
Gee, thanks Don. There's only one way to describe the claim that this was lost on Paul Samuelson: breathtakingly ignorant. And it's getting really, really old.
Agatha Christie could have been a great historian
10 hours ago