When it comes to interpreting the works and putting into perspective the words of one of the world’s premier economists, John Maynard Keynes, the critical contributions and towering presence of Robert Skidelsky is almost an inevitability. In a carefully curated book of essays, the premier British economic historian and author, strives to answer what seems to be a simple, but in reality, a profoundly philosophical question, “How would Keynes address the crises plaguing the 21st century?”
Skidelsky’s final boo, before his passing on the 15th of April 2026, addresses various issues of socio-economic significance such as the scourge of the COVID 19 pandemic, the financial recession of 2008 contrived via the cohesive workings of avarice and hyper capitalism, and the untrammelled rise of capitalism. To be fair to both the book and its author, the book is not an apology for Keynesianism. In fact, in a riveting “intermezzo” to one of the Chapters, Skidelsky revisits the evergreen ‘Keynes v Hayek’ debate (a topic which the author addresses in detail in a separate book), in which Hayek is accorded a fair and equitable appreciation.
Skidelsky argues that for Keynes, economics transcends the analysis of ends and means. It is a subject that is inextricably linked to the study of questions about the ends of life. Even though a brilliant economist, Keynes was steadfast in his understanding that the is invariably unknowable. This uncertain attribute of an unpredictable future, institutes an invaluable tenet: “better to be vaguely right than precisely wrong.” In an era where every day unravels an ambivalent development (I am no longer sure if innovation is an appropriate word even), in the confusing world of Artificial Intelligence, Keynes’ warning is more than just timely!
Keynes was convinced that a remedy for brining an ailing economy back on to its rails was twofold: maintaining full employment, and a redistribution policy that was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Abhorring the rampant desire for cash – “love of money”, Keynes preferred to direct his concentration upon addressing the potential perils of a sustained unemployment scenario. “It may be possible by a right analysis of the problem to cure the disease while preserving efficiency and freedom.”
Keynes also cocked a snook at the gold standard. Decrying the propensity for the gold standard to trigger deflationary economics, in situations where the metal was in a state of scarcity, he proposed a novel alternative. An assiduously and rationally managed “elastic currency” that would be a fit for purpose substitute. But the economist was quick to realise that the proposed solution was not an expeditious one. This attack on the gold standard was primarily directed at the United States of America, a nation with surplus quantities of gold. The apocryphal legend of King Midas was invoked to illustrate the potential predicament of hoarding gold.
The United States now is facing a real crisis in terms of a misalignment of its currency. The sweeping tariff mechanisms instituted by President Donald Trump (and invalidated by the Supreme Court), is a ferocious but infeasible attempt as seeking currency realignment, following a steep overvaluation of the dollar against other currencies, in particular against the Renminbi. In fact, Zhou Xiaochuan the former central bank governor of China, issued a clarion call for a resurrection of Keynes’ idea of, and for an internation reserve currency which Keynes called “bancor”.
While Keynesianism may have been relegated to the sidelines in favour of the burgeoning neo liberalistic brand of economics, Skidelsky leaves the last word regarding the relevance of Keynes to our times, to the magisterial subject of his book “Is an apocalypse needed to jolt politicians out of their intellectual ruts, or can a better analysis of our problems restore to health our diseased civilization in conditions of peace and freedom?”