Once you look at his notes, and understand Keynes converted Marx’s ‘dialectic’ (sophism) into Keynesian ‘innumeracy’ (ludic fallacy), you suspect his malincentives.

But once you learn Rule of Law(Classical) vs Arbitrary Rule (Keynes), you realize that pseudoscience (Marx) and innumeracy (Keynes) are the only two methods by which to distract you from the underlying conflict: Rule of Law and Arbitrary Rule. Just as the marxists and the postmoderns have distracted us with Capitalism (Rule of Law) versus Socialism (Arbitrary Rule). The success of the Keynesian method is predicated on dialectic (loading, framing, and obscuring) rather than measurement.

Why? What capital (that which we forgo opportunities or expend the results of opportunities to) invest in. So what Keynesianism achieves by innumeracy (fraud) is what Marx achieves by dialectic (sophism): the intentional distraction from the measurement of changes in capital to the measurement of the results of the consumption of it: including genetic, normative, traditional, knowledge, and institutional capital. And why did we (Hayek and others) fail?

Because under democracy one cannot stop the mob from raiding the accumulated capital of millennia, nor the pseudo-intellectual class, and the political class from profiting from the sale.

The Chicago school attempted to preserve rule of law and markets but the left has been too successful, the economists too well rewarded, and the financial industry, academy, and the state too well rewarded for doing so.

Hence why Athens spent all the silver from the mine they discovered; and why Spain spent all the gold it took from the new world in failed wars against the Netherlands; and why Americans spent all the income from conquest of a continent and selling it off to genetic middle classes from Europe. … Until they ran out of middle classes.