> It's as boring as having a resident Marxist posting the party-line Marxist take on any given economic problem, and has the same sanctimonious tone that claims to have the economy figured out, but without empirical data to back it up.

Before making any such broad assumptions please do read some of the Austrians and, why not, even Marx? First of all, like any true Marxist would be first to tell you, there is no "true Marxist".

The reason being that people are still in doubt, was Marx preaching for a sudden proletarian revolution (so, no support for the bourgeois economy and social doctrines, and under this light Keynes is as far from Marxism as Adam Smith himself), or for a gradual improvement of the workers' living conditions, followed by a voluntary surrender of power by the bourgeois middle-class to the lumpen-proletariat? Nobody knows.

And don't get me started on what socialist believes might have convinced Lenin that the capitalist-looking NEP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy) was an acceptable thing in order to support the proletarian revolution.