Department of "Huh?"
Peter Boettke praises Charles Rowley:
Charles Rowley on the State of Macroeconomics: Charles Rowley has never shied away from speaking truth to power. This is a very admirable trait. In a series of posts this week he demonstrates that principled stance as an economist again and is discussing the state of modern macroeconomics...
Charles Rowley, however, writes:
[T]he Keynesian model never worked... has been resuscitated by opportunistic economists not because they believe in its merits as an agent of macroeconomic rehabilitation, but because they recognize its political value as a weapon for moving economies from laissez-faire capitalism, or (hopefully) beyond that to fully-fledged socialism.
Peter, in saying that I do not believe in the merits of the Keynesian approach as an agent of macroeconomic rehabilitation Charles Rowley is not "speaking truth to power": he is lying through his teeth.
Peter, in saying that I advocate the policies I do because I seek to move economies to fully-fledged socialism Charles Rowley does not "demonstrate that principled stance": it is the most unprincipled thing I have read this year.
What we have here is a very bad Inigo Montoya problem: the words you use simply do not have the meanings that you appear to ascribe to them.
