Yes I have, and I enjoyed reading it quite a bit. I've also read Locke, Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, Marx, D'Annunzio, Polanyi, Hayek, Schumpeter, Kalecki, John Ke

Yes I have, and I enjoyed reading it quite a bit. I've also read Locke, Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, Marx, D'Annunzio, Polanyi, Hayek, Schumpeter, Kalecki, John Kenneth Galbraith, Friedman, Olson, North, a selection of other rational choice folks, developmental state literature, modernization theory literature, Gilpin's IPE, marxist IPE including a great deal of world-system theory (Wallerstein, Arrighi, Braudel), historical institutionalist political economy, constructivist political economy, and a smattering of post-Keynesians. Just because I think his argument isn't relevant to the current crisis, has flaws, and has negative political implications, doesn't mean I haven't read it or don't think it's a brilliant piece of writing. Like jpeterson said above, this piece takes a document that's been worked over by economists, political economists, scholars, and practitioners for the last 75 years and presents it in isolation, while nevertheless drawing conclusions from Keynes for the present day, ignoring everything that's come in between.