Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Three interconnected lines of thought are pursued in this article. The first one is present in Keynes's The End of Laissez Faire, the second one is not (but could have been), and the third one would have been impossible for Keynes to have discussed. These ideas converge with Keynes's call for democratic control of investments. They are fundamental building blocks to establish a new set of convictions for a social organization which addresses our current socio-economic challenges, particularly the re-emergence of laissez faire via (proto-)authoritarian regimes which combine popular support with pro-rich taxation and economic policies. The article consists of an introduction, four substantive sections, and concluding thoughts. In Section Two, Keynes's incipient description of what later became known as ‘public goods' is addressed. His understanding is better grounded than the one that emerged within Neoclassical economics in the 1950s. A proposal to expand Keynes’s conceptualization is offered and applied to address social protection and social policy in section three and, in section four, environmental issues. In Section Five, the re-emergence of laissez faire is contrasted with options for an alternative perspective based on points from the previous three sections. A summary and future research possibilities close the article.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Enrique Delamónica (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: