Link to an article by Mike Norman:
See also Robin Marie Averbeck on Liberalism
I have always disliked Dean Baker’s writing for a number of reasons, many of which are explicitly mentioned in the comments section of the Mike Norman blog post, and, indirectly, in Robin Marie Averbeck’s articles. In short, Baker adopts a strict center-right Keynesian (i.e. New Deal) economic theory but staunchly refuses to acknowledge that ideological position, instead opting to write shrill screeds that do little more than describe how economists who promote other economic theories are “mistaken” due to their (quite intentional) disregard for and non-adherence to Keynesian economic theory. He never justifies the assumptions that underlie his Keynesian theories, and when pressed on such points from the left simply responds that alternatives are “unrealistic” (thereby shutting down debate regarding such assumptions). This is a gutless approach that simply denies the existence of real disputes — it isn’t that neo-liberals fail to recognize how their economic policies promote inequality; most are actively trying to increase inequality — and ultimately, to quote Alain Badiou, maintains “silent acceptance of . . . external corruption under the cover of practical ‘realism'” that assumes away the possibility of a paradigm shift or of the tacit political underpinnings of all economic theory. And anyway, aren’t even his own inadequate, self-defeating Keynesian policies “unrealistic” too, in the sense that neo-liberals refuse to endorse them? At least people from the MMT, institutional and Marxist economic schools of thought openly acknowledge that they are relying on political policy assumptions.
Bonus link: “Keynesianism Will Not Save the World”