Stephen Yearwood
Sep 1, 2018 · 2 min read

Even though I disagree with your critique of Keynesianism, I agree completely with your final conclusion. The ultimate problem is the institutional structure of the system. Specifically — and this goes back to the very beginning of civilization — the problem has always been how to supply the money the economy needs efficaciously, so as not to destabilize it (choking it into recession/depression or cooking it with inflation).

Prior to Keynes, deflation was the recurring problem in the capitalist economy; his primary contribution was to overturn, not Hayek and them, but ‘Say’s Law’, which held that it was impossible for the economy to experience more than temporary divergence from optimum output/employment. Keynes demonstrated that, left to its own devices, the capitalist economy’s “optimum,” the highest possible, could be indefinitely low, with indefinitely high unemployment — and back then to be unemployed was to have no source of income whatsoever.

His ‘cure’, however, was doomed to failure because it failed to address that most fundamental issue already noted. I have developed a revolutionary monetary system that would accomplish that end. (For the record, I do have an M.A. in economics.)

Though revolutionary, my proposed system is not radical. It would build on existing institutions, not tear any of them down, to establish a stable, self-regulating, market-based economy, providing the means to eliminate unemployment , poverty, taxes, and public debt (without cost and without redistributing anything) — and increase sustainability (without more regulations) — without limiting income/property/wealth.

If interested, a relatively brief (“12 min read”) summary of it is available here on medium.com in “A Cure for the Ills of Capitalism.”

    Stephen Yearwood

    Written by

    unaffiliated, non-ideological, unpaid philosopher and political economist