I recently mentioned Steve Keen, an economist from the "Post-Keynesian" school of thought, whose work sounded appealing at first blush -- I plan to read the updated version of his magnum opus Debunking Economics in the next month or so. In the mean time, I just got through a recent journal article that he put out which provides a good introduction to his theory. Perhaps because I think of myself as a contrarian, there is much to his story that appeals. Again, in broad strokes, the main problem with neoclassical theories and models is that they start from the assumption that we are in equilibrium, thus their predictive powers have been lacking as it relates to periods of chaos (think recent time). Specifically, most economists don't account for the fact that banks endogenously create money through the act of lending (lending precedes reserves and not the other way around). So, debt does matter. Systems are inherently unstable. And I think I like where this reasoning is going.
Now, I should stop short of fully embracing Keen because (1) I have yet to read his book and (2) I know that he endorses large doses of fiscal stimulus as the recommended policy for what ails us. But I look forward to learning more. And perhaps having my mind changed.
