The gulf between actual post-Keynesians and the view of post-Keynesians you get in the blogosphere is many magnitudes wider than the gulf between actual Austrians and the view of Austrians you get in the blogosphere.
To get a sense of real Austrian economics you basically have to learn to tune out Ron Paul fanatics and get a proper sense of proportion between Auburn and the rest of the Austrians (not saying Auburn isn't real Austrian economics - it absolutely is, it's just not the whole story). But "real Austrian economics" is basically out there. It's quite easy to get a sense of the motivating ideas.
You really don't get that at all with post-Keynesians. Part of that is that a lot of the post-Keynesian blogosphere is caught up in big picture fight with "neoclassicism", whereas in actual post-Keynesian work that's just kind of in the background - some throw-away sentences in the introduction. Part of it is also the influence of MMT which I think tries to speak for a lot of the post-Keynesian community. Part of it is that post-Keynesian models are more mathematical than Austrian ideas, and therefore don't make it into the blogosphere as much.
The point is if you want to get what real, actual, Austrian economists are saying you can get that from the blogosphere (of course an in depth sense of it requires more in depth study). But there is no way you could get a sense of a work-horse post-Keynesian model, like a neo-Kaleckian model of income distribution and demand-lead growth, from the blogosphere... at least not in the blogs I've got on my feed.
Sociology implies Bob Murphy is an atheist
21 minutes ago