No idea. 

 I'll tell you a story later. Let's see first what others will tell (meanwhile i'll have some work in the garden also) 

 If empirical evidence contradicts their foundational argument, how can any other arguments they build be taken seriously. 

Monetary expansion is not beneficial to markets and value is not derived from labour.  

 I'm not going to debate the life and work of Keynes, here, but I just want to say that I am intellectually capable of analyzing each concept in isolation. 

 Okay that's valid. I'm not opposed to economic statistics for example, even though I think many economic models are worthless as they treat economics as a natural science.  

 Value is not derived from labour? Where does value derived from? 

 Value is subjective. 

 Not according to everyone. For others value can be measured 

 They are measuring things that correlate with the median valuation, but that valuation is subjective. 

 Still not according to everyone and not all use the method which uses the median valuation. But my english don't help me explain that as i wish 

 No, I get you. It's the normal economic theory that valuation is objective. 

 Ah that's exactly what I wanted to say in a few words, which is that there are several normal economic theories  

 It's sort of fringe to think valuation is subjective, but the Bitcoin price depends upon it. 

 nuance?! can't compute 🤖 

 So very long story very sort, keynes economics worked very efficiently after world war two (not for Greece, we had a very bloody civil war three times worst than world war two) and continued to work for thirty years or so until stagflation established itself and keynes economics could not give a solution. So, the so called liberals came with Reagan and they proposed the bubbles. Bubbles worked for stagflation for thirty years or so. You know the rest i think. And here we are. We have to find another solution, bubbles don't work now, except for some nasty elites.