The label “Keynesian” is convenient, but to be safe we should have a defined meaning for this as a party that can be criticized and contrasted with other parties.
So let us define “Keynesian” to be descriptive of a “school of thought” that originated at the time of the devaluations of the pound and the dollar in the early 30’s of the 20th century. The, more specifically, a “Keynesian” would favor the existence of a “manipulative” state establishment of central bank and treasure which would continuously seek to achieve”economic welfare” objectives with comparatively little regard for the long term reputation of the national currency and the associate effects of that on the reputation of the financial enterprises domestic to the state.
Since the definition above was created before the advent of bitcoin I think it should be updated, since it is quite possible and likely that the Keynesian attitudes that are espoused by so many will pervade the social movement that bitcoin fuels.
How did we arrive to support a system that is so detrimental to its own peoples, when the systems that create them are founded on democracy and by the will of the peoples themselves? I think it cannot be but from our own ignorance and our attempts to control and persuade things we do not understand.
A “blockchain Keynesian” would demand an authority of some kind (any kind), manipulate the parameters of bitcoin to serve ones own wants and needs, without proper considerations to the long term ramifications of such authority and manipulation. A “blockchain Keynesian” believes that there can be some group of people that might be able to intuit the future of something that cannot be intuited and thus espouses the belief that arbitrary decisions are not arbitrary. Specifically put, the blockchain Keynesian wants to manipulate block-size in order to serve a purpose that is detrimental to the society they wish bitcoin to represent. A block-chain Keynesian wants the block-size to be manipulated.