Might be a US thing. In most university programs, undergrads learn about Keynes’ impact on fiscal policy in the first, basic course on macroeconomics. Keynes’ ideas about short-term borrowing, where no new tax revenue is made explicit (just borrowing) are sketched out at a high level. Ime nothing is said at all about Keynes personal life. All discussion is restricted to his ideas only.
Milton Friedman of course explained the rise in GDP caused by short-term borrowing as strictly an effect of monetary levels. Because understanding the differences between the two schools requires more exposure to Keynes than econ 101, discussion of Friedman’s monetary policy is usually only undertaken in more advanced courses.
So it’s not her lack of knowledge about economists that bothers me, it’s that she purports to have some knowledge of macroeconomics and fiscal policy. Her comments seem to reveal that she was never exposed to Friedman, however.
If you attended an American university as a serious student of econ, and you’re only 29 ffs, you’re not going to conflate Milton Friedman with JM Keynes. Noway, no how.
So bottom line it just goes to show how empty her rhetoric and her resume are.
Also, she seems to be yet another case where Democrats project their own faults (she’s becoming a bit of a cult) onto Republicans (Dems say they’re a cult of Trump).
What the heck did Keynes think about offispring, anyway?