What ever Happened to Keynesianism?

I saw this and couldn't help but think, what the fuck? Seriously.

A Keynesian revival?

There has been much talk about a revival of Keynesianism.

A revival? Would something first have to fade away before it can come back? Keynesianism has been a constant, a mainstay in the economic interventionist policies of most governments around the world for generations.

The main evidence in favour is that the term is occasionally quoted in the business press, and that economic policy has, if somewhat inconsistently, adopted a ‘do something’ approach, in particular in the early phase of the crisis.

The resurgence is due to Keynesianism being on the lips of talking heads and empty suits? The logic escapes me here...

But identifying Keynesianism with ‘do something’ (in contrast to the old liberal creed of ‘do nothing and let the markets do their work’) is a misunderstanding of Keynesianism as well as of neoliberalism. Politically, Keynes argued in favour of fiscal policy with the aim of achieving full employment. He supported strict banking regulation and was in favour of capital controls (‘finance has to be national’). Quantitative easing is only Keynesian in so far as it involves the financing of expansionary government expenditures. Keynes argued that in a financial crisis monetary policy would be ineffective and fiscal policy must be used. On the theoretical level, the Keynesian approach, with its emphasis on fundament uncertainty, involuntary unemployment, the inability of wage flexibility to cure unemployment, and so on, marks a clear break with the neoclassical economics that dominates academia. Post- Keynesians have developed this approach further (and combined it with a Kaleckian macroeconomic class approach). Prominent proponents of ‘Keynesianism’ like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz are building on Keynes’s policy suggestions, but in their academic work they follow neoclassical lines.

It is also important to realize that neoliberalism is a quite different project from the old liberalism, which believed that a hands-off approach to the market would naturally spring into existence and find its way to a smooth and efficient equilibrium. Neoliberals, on the other hand, are market builders. Competition is regarded as the general normative organizational principle for society (and the state). Markets thus have to be created and maintained.19 Neoliberalism does not have a clear correspondence in academic economics. The neoclassical tradition highlights the self-adjusting and efficient properties of markets, but it fits uneasily with the neoliberal emphasis on market building. The (‘neo-Austrian’) tradition of Hayek is critical of the neoclassical notion of equilibrium (for Hayek markets don’t simply reveal a pre-existing equilibrium price, but are price discovery mechanisms; there is a much more evolutionary understanding of markets). Other leading participants of the Mont Pelerin Society (such as Milton Friedman and Garry Becker) have been more squarely part of mainstream economics and, indeed, transformed mainstream economics.

Fore more mind-boggling ignorance, you can attempt to read the rest, but you've been warned: Euro-Keynesianism? The financial crisis in Europe | Radical Philosophy