I agree that Keynes was right economically, but his model put the economy in the hands of people. That exposes the economy to the full range of human frailties. Who could have guessed that the rich would eventually bend that set of circumstances to their benefit to the detriment of the non-rich? In my paradigm the economy is fully self-regulating. Conservatism has been largely defined by support for that very process.

At least in my paradigm there is a guaranteed income a person could actually live on. It takes the zero-sumness out of the distribution of material well-being.

What your conservative savant should have said is that money loses all value when the amount of it is limitless-which it is these days. There is no limit on how much money can be created.

A fundamental weakness of the existing central bank/central government model that is, well, central to Keynesianism is that central governments have discovered that they can incur unlimited monetary obligations and leave it to the central bank, as lender of last resort, to deal with it--including deciding how much currency to have created in the process of ensuring that all newly issued debt of the government will be purchased. In my paradigm that role would no longer exist. If borrowing were allowed, it would be in the normal market for securities, like states in the U.S. borrow today.

Also, there are individuals and corporations that have accumulated so money that it is essentially meaningless to them. In my paradignm there is a limit on hoarding money.