Given how many Keynesian economists predicted a return to depression conditions when World War II spending came to an end, and that what we instead got was the single most robust year the private economy has ever seen, isn't it a little strange that not one of these economists went back and reexamined his premises?
The Austrian arguments, to repeat, are deductive. They are not statistical.
Time after weary time, it is the mainstream and Keynesian economists (who ridicule and ignore Austrian economics as unscientific) whose predictions are utterly refuted by the events of history.
Schumpeter went on to remind the audience that the heart of the capitalist process was its endless dynamism, which was the opposite of Keynesian stagnationism.
The Black Book of Communism is a standing rebuke to any living soul who claims that economic understanding doesn't matter.
No one wanted to hear the message that voting by itself produces nothing, and that force by itself wastes resources and "produces" less and less.
Mises says that all expansion of bank credit must absolutely cease: "no more legal tender banknotes and no more credit expansion!"
In the same way that we need some junior historian to devote his career to exposing every nefarious plot of the New Deal, so we need an economist to refute the General Theory.
"Egyptian workers during this period suffered badly from the abuses of the state intervention of the economy…"
"Public estimation of eminence runs in reverse ratio to its genuineness," writes Mencken, anticipating Obama, "the sort of eminence that the mob esteems most highly is precisely the sort that has least grounding in solid worth and honest accomplishment."
