In this article, economist John Junene explains why Keynesian economic theories are more than just theory, and why they are the foundation of a much larger philosophy.
I believe that Keynesian economics is a theory of everything.
There is no single, central theory that describes the behavior of a society or the workings of its economy.
The economy, in its very nature, has to function according to the desires of the individual or collective members.
Keynes himself wrote that “economic reality is always changing, and its nature, its workings, its principles are continually changing.”
Economists, like scientists, are interested in discovering the nature of reality, but they are also interested in finding the “right” answers to the questions that economists ask.
This is not the kind of question that can be answered by “discovering” a single theory.
It’s more like “solving a puzzle by looking at all the possible solutions and finding a good one.”
It’s a philosophy, not a science.
Keynes’ economic theories describe a society’s behavior under certain conditions and at certain times.
They explain how economic activity is regulated, how the economy is organized, and how people and the environment interact.
Keynes is not interested in the details of how people live or how they work, or in the laws of physics.
Keynesian theory explains how a society operates in the abstract, how things work.
It explains why things work the way they do, how they change.
It also explains how some things work better than others.
“The theory of the economy,” Keynes wrote, “is the theory of every conceivable event in history.”
Keylaws economic theory is a “scientific theory,” not a “philosophical theory.”
Economic theory describes how a social, political, or cultural system works under certain circumstances.
It describes how an individual or group interacts with one another.
Economics, unlike the other sciences, does not focus on what it is that makes a thing tick.
It focuses on what makes a person tick.
Economic analysis of the past can be useful in understanding what’s happening in the present.
But economists do not “determine the past” in the way that scientists do.
Economists, unlike scientists, focus on how things are going to work out in the future.
They do not attempt to predict the future or to forecast the past.
The future, the future, is a mystery to economists.
For example, economists cannot predict the effect of a government tax on a country’s economy, or the impact of a new technology on a certain part of the world.
They cannot predict what would happen if the economy were restructured to produce a more efficient society.
Keynesians can predict the economy’s future.
Even when they cannot predict, economists can make predictions.
In the 19th century, economists studied what would become known as “social science,” or economic theory.
The name came from the Latin word “socius,” which meant “knowledge.”
The scientific study of the social world and its institutions was called “social sciences.”
In fact, Keynesians and other economists did not study the social sciences.
Keynes and other Keynesian economists studied economic theory in general, not just economic theory as such.
Keynes did not write about the “economics” of human behavior.
His economics was not an economic theory; it was a philosophy.
Keynes was interested in analyzing how the workings and behavior of society functioned, and in figuring out how society functions best under certain particular conditions.
It was only later in his life that Keynesians began to focus on “social policy,” the specific economic policy choices that might be necessary to maintain a given society’s economic and political system.
One of the earliest social scientists to take this position was William Jennings Bryan, a prominent American Republican and former governor of Georgia.
He argued that social policies were important because they could “preserve and improve” the “orderliness” of society.
Social policy, Bryan argued, was “the least efficient of all the policy arts” because “the orderliness of society is more important than the orderliness [of] individuals.”
He argued for a system of government that was designed to maximize the “merit and efficiency” of the existing social system.
(He called this system “government by the people.”)
This was an important insight.
Social policy can be designed to make society more efficient, or to reduce or eliminate its efficiency.
But it can also be designed so that the new system is more efficient.
Bryan’s insight led to a much more sophisticated and sophisticated view of how to design a government.
He developed the idea of a “consensus,” or “framework,” for governing a society.
Consensus theory explains why it is “better” to “work” with the “majority” rather than with the minority.
Bryan, like many of the other Keynesians of the period, believed