First there was a notice posted at the History of Economics online discussion thread advertising a conference to be held later this year on “The Relevance of Keynes to the Contemporary World”. So I wrote a note which read:

I would like to note a concern I have about this conference.. I will concede that I do not know all of the scholars who have been invited to speak, but what strikes me as a serious problem is that none of the invited speakers whose views I do know can be described as a critic of Keynesian theory. Whatever anyone might think about what makes Keynes “Keynesian”, and which has kept his name alive today, it is this:

“Keynes’s insights for the management of domestic economies in the times of a global recession and European crisis”

One would hope that after the universal failure of the Keynesian stimulus after 2009 that there might at least be some effort to examine the flaws in the Keynesian system. Not a single economy has returned to full employment and robust rates of growth, and we are now seven years since the stimulus packages were first introduced. Debt and deficits are the central problems every economy is now having to deal with. By all means examine Keynes’s work, but at the same time in looking at its relevance, there should surely also be some attempt to look at its irrelevance, indeed at the strong likelihood that Keynesian policies are harmful and destructive.

Later this year a volume I have edited will be published presenting the views of a series of modern critics of Keynesian economic theory and policy. The most astonishing aspect in editing this book was to find how few vocal critics of Keynesian economics there are. They exist, but are very rare. I would think that for this conference to be a proper evaluation of Keynesian ideas, at least some of its critics should be invited to speak as well.

After a brief flurry of discussion, there was a note put out by the moderator of the discussion thread.

I distributed a few messages on the fiscal stimulus and hoped the discussion would die a natural death, but I am now getting quite a few messages, pro and con.

I would like to remind everyone that this is a history of economics list, so I do not think it is appropriate for a discussion of current economic policy. In addition, a list such as this is a poor vehicle for such a conversation, which we all know will end badly, with much more heat than light.

If you wish, I would be happy to send everyone who is interested in this discussion a list of like-minded folks and you can continue this conversation in private. Judging from the replies, there is really is great interest in this question, but I repeat that it is not within the bounds of our list.

Yours in moderation

To which I have now replied.

I complete agree with our moderator that this list is not the place to debate the merits of Keynesian economic theory and policy. I did not seek to open such a debate, but only meant to comment on the nature of a conference that looks at only one side of the issue, which its organisers are perfectly entitled to do. It is noteworthy, all the same, that there is an interest in just such a debate, but more interesting is that there is nowhere that it can be held. I do, however, also believe that this kind of debate is part of the history of economic thought. I go further and argue that one of the most important purposes in studying the history of economic thought is that we economists have a forum in which such issues can be discussed. This does not mean that an examination of Keynesian theory is only part of the history of economic thought. What I take this to mean is that a study of the history of economic thought is a crucially important part of economics.

And there, for the moment, things now lie.