When I studied Keynesian Economics, I came to understand that Keynes was almost ignoring the supply side and was doing all the adjustments on the demand side. He always talks about creating effctive, but what about supply? He was the one who was saying that classical theory was one sided(Supply creates its own demand) and he himself in his theory is doing only a one sided adjustment (ie on the demand side). Shouldnt we consider both supply and demand sides of an economic problem.

What was the first suplly or demand? I tend to believe that demand. Only recently marketeers learned how to create mass demand for supply of something unessential or even harmful. Actually, I think it was ancient Greeks who's pioneered such a marketeering. If one would think about the driving force behind all those Greek colonies on the shore of Black Sea (which fed ancient Greece per se). All that magnificent civilization became possible only and only because Greek could hook up Scythian elite on the golden trinketry.

Remember, the time when Keynes was called to the resque. Lots of supply + lots of demand unsupported with cash = starving people + rotten, discarded, burnt food.

What did you mean? I didnt understand the connection between Greeks and my question.

What did you mean? I didnt understand the connection between Greeks and my question.
I meant that stimulating demand comes first. Since capitatilism is famous for its inherent "crises" of overproduction. That means if one will let capitalist beast loose, it will be living in the boom-bust cycles, causing suffering and deaths for those at the bottom. Keynessian approach allowed to smooth out boom-bust cycles by means of stimulating demand at the bottom, by means of running budget deficits, etc. In other words, bottom part of the pyramide is getting dough or jobs (directly or indirectly from the state) in the times when free market would leave them starving, a.k.a. stimulating demand. Boom busts that we know ain't nothing like those in 19th century, thanks to Keynes.

Greek colonies is the first kind of civilization scale marketeering, Greeks were about to starve in their overcrowded mainland polises, they needed to get rid of lots of folks and get food from elsewhere. Thus, greek colonies have spung
in many places. Out of them, Greek colonies on the Black Sea shore were the most important food sources for mainland at the time. The problem was that Greeks were weak militarily to occupy the entire black sea shore + they had nothing really to offer in the terms of trade to the Scythians, who dominated the region at the time. Luckily, they could hook up Skythian elites on the gold gimcrackery. Thus, they created demand for the supply of something generally useless and unessential. It's what modern marketeers are mostly doing. However this kind of demand is somewhat different than Keynessian, since it's totally psychological.

Shouldnt we consider both supply and demand sides of an economic problem.
I would guess that supply comes before demand in the case of new technologies (like television), since there can't be demand for TVs before they exist.

When I studied Keynesian Economics, I came to understand that Keynes was almost ignoring the supply side and was doing all the adjustments on the demand side. He always talks about creating effctive, but what about supply? He was the one who was saying that classical theory was one sided(Supply creates its own demand) and he himself in his theory is doing only a one sided adjustment (ie on the demand side). Shouldnt we consider both supply and demand sides of an economic problem.

The classical model assumed that there was full employment of labor, therefore output in the short run was always supplied at some level Y*, regardless of price level.

Keynes turned the model sideways and claimed that there are always people to be employed– any amount of output can be supplied at the existing price level.

I agree that over production eventually resulting in depression ( as in the case of Great Depression of 1930's ) is an inherent tendency of a capitalist economy without any external intervention. So it is evident without the control of an outside authority (govt.) a capitalist economy will not attain equilibrium. But why do the government or any other outside authority ( meant to restrict economic activity ) wait for the forces of supply to bring about a situation of over production ? A better alternative would be to watch the trends of supply which lead to over production and bring about a control on the supply.
I admit that the apt solution to recover from the Great Depression of 1930's was to stimulate demand through deficit financing or pump priming. This is because then ( in 1930's ) over production had already occured and the right thing to do in such a case is to stimulate demand.But this solution is a very particular one and that's not the case each time. I would suggest to make adjustments on both the demand and supply sides and thus balance the equation.

gopakumar is "The Architect" from now onwards