Trigger words: Keynesian economics (3)
Indicator sentences: Are you talking about 'Keynesian economics' as described by economists (and, if so, exactly which formalization?) or 'Keynesian economics' as described by media pundits, politicians, /r/politics &c.?
Negotiation parts: Assuredly the latter. I am but a humble layperson who has no economic training, and therefore am far more set in my view than any actual economist.
Trigger words: class warfare (3)
Indicator sentences: That's not class warfare - that's just solving the challenges of our times.
Negotiation parts: What I think you'r missing is that Keynesian theory isn't some sort of call for economic equality - that's a caricature of it. It simply believes that *demand* is the important driver. If no one can confidently buy your goods, it isn't good for anyone - the wealthy included. "Class Warfare" is a politically charged but ultimately meaningless phrase used by opponents of the theory. Every tax cut or tax implementation will affect classes differently. A tax cut is "class warfare" just as much as a new tax. Laissez faire / supply side boomed & busted in the 20's, so the pendulum swung in the other direction for 50 years until the stagflation of the 70's. Then the supply side was king from Reagan to the '08 bust and issues the millennials are having now, so we're probably due for a Keynesian correction for a little while.
Trigger words: many (2)
Indicator sentences: Does many = a significant minority? Nope.
Negotiation parts: Here's what Miriam Webster defines "many" as. [STA-CITE]>Many- consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number [END-CITE]"Many" doesn't have to refer to a significant minority. It can refer to a small minority (provided that the number is numerically large enough) or it can refer to a majority. Doesn't this make it even easier to prove my original point? I thought you were only complaining because you thought I meant a majority, which I never did.