Crime Against Humanity: Pensée Unique in Economics, 63

But despite these early insights and occasional bursts of research focusing on credit, its role has remained too small in mainstream theories. According to Schumpeter (1954), ‘it proved extraordinarily difficult for economists to recognize that bank loans and bank investments do create deposits. In fact, throughout the period under survey they refused with practical unanimity to do so.’ …
Schumpeter notices the even greater curiosity that those economists that seemed to have recognized it at one stage, then completely abrogated the idea a few years later: Keynes recognized the function of banks as creators of credit in his 1930 Treatise, but the ‘deposit−creating bank loan and its role in the financing of investment without any previous saving up of the sums thus lent have practically disappeared in the analytic schema of the General Theory, where it is again the saving public that holds the scene. Orthodox Keynesianism has in fact reverted to the old view … Whether this spells progress or retrogression, every economist must decide for himself.’”

It is rather interesting to notice who the economist who turned the tables like this was: John Maynard Keynes, the founder of a mainstream economic school seemingly antithetical to neoclassical economics and nevertheless still acclaimed to this very day, on his way to becoming a leading figure in the economic, and political, events of that period. Considering on the one hand how both schools share the same blind eye turned to the falsity of the foundations that we have seen, and on the other hand how any economic school covering up the usurpation of monetary sovereignty plays in the hands of its usurpers regardless of whether they advocate balanced budget or deficit spending, there’s enough to look at Keynes, his turning the tables, his success, and their chronological relation with some suspicion.

Crime Against Humanity: Pensée Unique in Economics