In 1936, British economist John Maynard Keynes published his seminal magnum opus: The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Meanwhile, The United States of America suffered the Great Depression as Europe persisted in the hegemonic endeavor of imperial industrial, economic, and military mobilization (Keeping Faith, 11) . Essentially, Keynesianism is a macroeconomic econometric school of thought which predicates that during economic recessions, aggregate demand significantly impacts economic output ( the quantity of goods and services produced in a given time period). Here aggregate demand is to be understood as the total amount of money spent in the economy. Further, Keynesian economists postulate that aggregate demand is not equipollent to aggregate supply (A Treatise on Money, 64). Rather, both aggregate demand and aggregate supply are determined and influenced by myriad factors. Additionally, owing to the nature of capitalism, Keynesian theorists contend that fluctuation and dimidiation of aggregate demand and aggregate supply ensue unpredictable impacts on production, employment, and inflation (The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, 98). Put simply, Keynesianism opines that fiscal decision-making and econometric course of action heavily influence the quantity (and quality) of what societies are able to produce. In this essay, I shall expound the foundations of Keynesianism and elucidate historical and contemporary examples of felicific implementations of Keynesian econometric theory in modern economic thought and the global economy.

First, it is of critical importance to consider the factual circumstances under which and the situational conditions with which Keynes controverted the philosophic tenets of neoclassical economic theory. In short, Keynes elucidated the fallacy of several of the most elemental truth claims of neoclassical economics, namely the belief that free-markets would in the short term, engender full employment under the condition that fungible labor be systematically accrued in non-asymmetric relation to wage demand. Obversely, Keynes ingeniously explained that aggregate demand (specifically the demand of goods and services; money spent) principally informed and largely determined commercial dimensions and quantifiable facets of economic activity. More specifically, he appositely suggested that insufficient aggregate demand could lead to prolonged periods of unemployment (General Theory of Employment, 23). As such, Keynes necessarily encouraged government intervention when the periodicity of contractionary business cycles threatened the economic growth and development of the nation-state. In particular, Keynes espoused the hedonic utility of fiscal and monetary resources to ameliorate aversive conditions of economic recessions, setbacks, and depressions (Essays in Persuasion, 11). To put it crudely, Keynes prudently obliged the government to sagaciously regulate the market, particularly business cycles with robust fiscal policy corroborated by theoretical-factorial regression analyses and axiomatic theorems of tensor-variable calculus (Essays in Persuasion, 34). Consequently, it can be both adduced and propounded that Keynesianism is germane to modern econometric thought and economic decision-making precisely because it intimated the utility and necessity of substantive fiscal regulation confirmed by advanced theorems of theoretical deduction in mathematical sciences.

Second, I shall elucidate the felicific implementations of Keynesian theory since its provenance. Initially, Keynesian theory was considered singularly appurtenant to The Great Depression owing to its concomitant implementation and impregnable validation during hypertrophic phases of social crises and economic downturn (The Cunning of Unreason, 56). Before writing his magnum opus, Keynes enumerated policy suggestions for Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Responsibly (and thankfully), Roosevelt and his progressive economic cohort abided by and followed through with many of Keynes’ specific policy suggestions. For example, Keynes suggested the enactment of fiscal policies which provided micro-infrastructural improvements, husbandry and tillage subsidy, curricular employment training, and deductible tax revision mandates. Fortunately, all of the aforementioned suggestions were successfully implemented throughout Roosevelt’s presidency.  Elsewhere, Keynes’ supplicatory econometric theories of provisional and contingent eminent domain—systemic regulation and conditioned parametric expropriation—were translated into fiscal policy suggestions which were markedly well-received as they were institutionally indoctrinated, culturally imbibed, socially redressed and redrafted, in some cases, concurrently theoretically expounded and politically contracted, yet seldom implacably implemented owing to the ubiquitous cultural clout and pervasive economic influence of societal structures of domination, namely plutocratic monopolies and oligopolies. However, Britain and France did revise their fiscal policy based on Keynesian thought to accommodate the economic desiderata of their citizens (Keeping Faith, 18). In particular, Britain and France provided segmental portions of their citizenry (those furthest below the poverty threshold) with temporary, pendular packages of monetary relief. Summarily, Keynesianism served as a vital econometric reference to both regimes and academes and a critical source of insight throughout and beyond The Great Depression.

In years subsequent, Keynesianism effectuated a proliferation of rational techniques and adductive theoretical formulae which congealed econometric models and stylistic templates conducive to scholastic interests in contemplative critical revision, inculcated dimensional methodologies of reexamination, and systemic modifications of the trajectory and content of fiscal, econometric, juridical, and socio-legal policy. More precisely, Keynesianism aided and improved our understanding of the nature of economics by evincing and accentuating the importance of synthesizing and preserving corrective procedures, strategically ameliorative measures, and axially adaptive econometric modalities of conditionally and critically appropriated processes of providing monetary aid to disadvantaged citizens so as to stimulate and stabilize the long term health, growth, and development of modern (globalized) capitalist economies (Essays in Persuasion, 49). In other words, Keynes cautioned us against deteriorating the socioeconomic safety net and emboldened us to endeavor to consolidate and vivify the fragile units and frail dimensions of our micro-structural econometric modalities. More specifically, Keynesianism arose as the saving grace of The Great Recession of 2008. Needless to say, President Obama commenced his presidency with a disconcertingly inordinate and extensive list of fiscal disasters and economic calamities to address, not to mention the innumerable grievances germane to social crises and societal catastrophes he was expected to alleviate. Perspectively, his economic team swiftly analyzed the statuses, arrangements, and liminal conditions of the nations fiscal resources in order to particularize the trajectory, recipient, content and quantity of monetary aid which would be dispensed by crystalizing the hearth of our already overextended federal budget (Keeping Faith, 66). The turnout saved the auto industry, the banking industry, and favored the interests of corporate campaign donors: plutocratic elites. Also vital to note here is the fact that Keynes generally expressed interest in and principally prioritized lending assistance to disadvantaged persons in underrepresented echelons of socioeconomic hierarchical structures of world powers. So while his econometric theory is often utilized and his ideas appropriated (implemented), they are as well, modified, diluted, attenuated and extenuated to satisfy the cupidity and preserve the iniquitous indemnity of those who essentially, nefariously cause, reproduce, and reinforce the insoluble problem of economic inequality and poverty.

To put it crudely, most Keynesian economists of today are Neo-Keynesian, or, better yet, pseudo-Keynesians which is to say that they supplicate the premise of helping those in need with further empowering the clout and fattening the wealth of those whom are already economically well-endowed, if not extremely wealthy. Take for example the economic ideas and econometric prescriptions espoused by Andrew Michael Spence,  George Akerlof, Joseph Stiglitz, Stanley Fischer, Lawrence Summers, Timothy Geithner, Paul Samuelson, and Ken Rogoff. Certainly, the most notable exception to this trend of increasingly technocratic Keynesian economic thought is Paul Krugman (Left Turn, 17). A prophetic economist endowed with a genuine sensibility of compassion and compelled by a distinct commitment to enriching and improving the prophetic quality of ideas of modern economics, Paul Krugman best exemplifies the legacy of John Maynard Keynes and the foundations of Keynesianism. By identifying concrete forms of inequality and speaking truth to power by calling upon structures and institutions of domination to maintain social accountability and political responsibility, Krugman advances an idea central to the philosophy of John Maynard Keynes: employ economics and use its concomitant techniques of theoretical deduction to improve the quality of life of those who are suffering (On Keynes, 2). Put simply, Paul Krugman robustly evinces and idiosyncratically expounds the creative genius, intricate implications, and remarkable ingenuity vibrant within the lifeblood of the Keynesian econometric school of thought. 

Holistically, Keynesianism is a critical econometric school of thought founded by the most important economist of the twentieth century: John Maynard Keynes. The ideas and principles of Keynesianism have manifest their capacity to augment economic growth and sustain relative economic development in the United States and Europe since 1933. More important, Keynesianism motivated and mobilized many economists whose research and scholarship have contributed copiously the the development of the discipline both in and outside of academia. The foundations of Keynesianism inform the fiscal policy of economic revisionism by encouraging the utilization of financial resources to improve the quality of life of vulnerable citizens. By this token of logical reason and the sheer reverential sentiment of altruism, Keynesianism set the stage for a grand global transaction of lucrative ideas and theoretical advancements that continue to enhance our understanding of modern economics.