>A large component of 70's stagflation was just supply shocks for oil. Why this never gets brought up, or is just brushed aside casually is beyond me.
It's politically expedient to forget it - just as it's politically expedient to forget that the people causing the oil shocks and the people who benefited from them politically seemed (and continue to seem) to have some interesting relationships.
Keynes is in danger of being written out of history, in the same way that dissidents like Henry George were.
I'm not sure how many people realise the extent to which anti-Keynesian narratives were deliberately promoted and funded after WWII, especially in Chicago.
The fact that Keynes is no longer considered an orthodox policy source is not an accident.
It's politically expedient to forget it - just as it's politically expedient to forget that the people causing the oil shocks and the people who benefited from them politically seemed (and continue to seem) to have some interesting relationships.
Keynes is in danger of being written out of history, in the same way that dissidents like Henry George were.
I'm not sure how many people realise the extent to which anti-Keynesian narratives were deliberately promoted and funded after WWII, especially in Chicago.
The fact that Keynes is no longer considered an orthodox policy source is not an accident.