For the majority of your points in class, Mr. Weaver, you mentioned spending as the main factor/catalyst for production in Keynesian economics. Is this truly the focal point of what Keynesians believe or teach? I feel like just by looking at the evidence of economics, anyone is capable of noticing that spending is not the starting point for economic growth. Consumption and production work hand in hand to create wealth and increase the value of a community. Just because you buy more products, does not mean that your society will be richer. Typically, if you have more money, then you are considered wealthier. It seems as if Keynesian economics teaches that having less money per capita will increase the overall wealth of a society. Tell me if I am wrong, but this is what I have drawn from Chapter 11 so far.
I agree Koeppe. The Keynesian principle seems out of line and not entirely the whole scope of an economy. There is certainly more factors than just simply buying things.
If I were to steal man the argument, I suppose their primary focus is on production. In their view, production happens because consumers are spending. My critique is that production happens because individuals set aside resources to produce, instead of the consume - production comes from previous saving. Your assessment of the Keynesian model is the same as mine. Perhaps you would be convinced if you listened to a Keynesian economist lecture on the topic.