In the gloomy light of the current economic reality, a (domestic and international) public debate on the applicability and functionality of the Keynesian tools and the expansionary economic measures of the period 1933-1936 which have provided solutions to the economic hardship In 1929, especially in our country, the vast majority, analysts, researchers and journalists in general (assisted by the international leaders of New-Keynesianism – Peter Bofinger , Paul Krugman, etc.) reaches the point of spreading the economic authorities to accept these policies.

I will not judge whether they are right or wrong. But I will suggest the following points as parameters that need to be offset in drawing the conclusions:

  • Keynes’s theory proposes to cure a model that balances at the wrong place, generating great unemployment and falling active demand. As a basic prerequisite for this solution, it is assumed that the “patient” functioned before the crisis under full economic freedom. Fiscal and monetary expansion will therefore generate deficits, which can be directly funded , and on the other hand in the medium term should be addressed .
  • In Greece, during the period 2000-2009, there was a huge fiscal expansion, either inevitable (financing of necessary infrastructure and Olympic Games) or frivolous and voting (creating dozens of new public institutions, increasing lending to meet consumer needs, etc.).Therefore “fat” has been consumed. The new expansion should be funded with new lending. The moment this solution is adopted is the same as the entry of the Greek Economy into an endless and vicious circle of new deficits.
  • The acceptance by a serious portion of analysts of the structural nature of the Greek Question proves that the Keynesian tools do not fit him, because if they solve it, it will be extremely short-term and will eventually be exhausted, costing more than any benefit.When referring to “changing the model of production”, there is a need for structural changes that start from institutional issues (ie political and economic stability) and touch upon attitudes and stereotypes that coexisted with the social body in the form of a Greek state, (corruption, customer service, family).
  • The existing (and exhaled) production model was not based on a comparative productive advantage over the other economies but on the consumption and capital exploitation (mainly real estate, while shortly before the income was created by the Greek Government Bonds and the Bonds,remember the “ranitiers” incomes of the 1980s and 1990s ). An important “pillar” was also the enormous power and activism of the Black economy. These elements are not met in Keynes’ songs . On the contrary, laissez-faire dominates in its purest form.
  • TheKeynes was a supporter of surpluses, considering their balanced budgets as a necessary condition for any possible future deficits. In no way referred to a social (and therefore enlarged, and hence deficient) state. Therefore, the invocation of the left and popular-dikes is identical to the ignorance of his theory.

The recommendation for reading the classic Keynesian “General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money” is typically considered necessary – but it does require huge reserves of expertise in reading economic theses, which are enriched with abundant algebra. However, the invocation of ” Kaynesian Regulation” should be carefully publicly accepted: Keynes is placed in the field of classical economic theory. So his view is liberal and he repels statehood. However, living the terrible and intense social and political turmoil of the period from the end of the Great War to the Economic Crash and the consolidation of totalitarianism along the length of the Old Continent, he intelligently and effectively diagnosed something that his forebears (due to conditions ) were faced with a completely different view: the role of employment and the consequences of non – employment (= unemployment). The parameter set for Smith and t o Ricardo had a serious but given role ( Malthus had forecasted the threat, but in a rough way and with a lack of clarity) in Keynes’ writings just updated.

In addition , we must not forget that the leftist influences of the great British theorist are based on the teachings of Bertrand Russell , one of the brightest philosophers of this century, whose spiritual child was what one could easily describe as “British Socialism “. The main frontier of this current was the rejection of any state intervention. On the contrary, the basis for its development was the concept of “community” based on the sum of individual individual initiatives.

But even prominent Keynesians like Paul Krugman , Paul Samuelson or James Tobin talk and write about benefits and in any case redistributive transfers within an economy – but at the core of their analysis lies the defense of the Free Market and the containment of state interventionism. The “drug” (state and fiscal expansion) makes no sense to ruin the patient, but to gently restore his health.

Therefore the Keynes is still liberal. Otherwise, think about Karl ‘s presence Marx and his followers.