My reading of Andrew Jackson is that he plainly opposed Federal money intervention en toto precisely because any regulation would inevitably be hijacked by the monied interests. Didn’t he advocate state competition in the money market? He certainly didn’t advocate a Federal income tax. I grow tired of one of our nation’s forefathers being invoked in anachronistic fashion to promote doctrines that would make the man roll in his grave. The most efficient way of distributing money is self-evident to the person who earns it and, with a multitude of cases in the fullness of time, spontaneous order is achieved.
By asserting these revised tenets, Mann reconciles many disparate figures — Paul Krugman, Hyman Minsky, Joan Robinson, Paul Samuelson, both J. K. Galbraiths — who identify themselves as Keynesians, but disagree frequently and vehemently with each other. Mann also insistently “outs” contemporary economists (notably, Thomas Piketty) who are Keynesian by his definition, whether they admit it or not. He traces the lineage of Keynesianism backward, not only through Thomas Robert Malthus and G. E. Moore, whose influence Keynes acknowledged, but also Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Thomas Hobbes, and, most unexpectedly, the Jacobin revolutionary, Maximilien Robespierre. Remarkable as this genealogy is, Mann’s account is more provocative for what it implies, and sometimes outright asserts, about contemporary economics and the precarious civilization it promises to preserve. Keynes offered crucial justifications for elevating and expanding the roles economic experts play in statecraft. In return, he expected them to abandon their most specious claims to positivism and their providential faith in laissez-faire. His successors welched on their end of this bargain, to put it mildly.
A second common criticism of Leopold is that he fails to state clearly why we should adopt the land ethic.  He often cites examples of environmental damage (., soil erosion, pollution, and deforestation) that result from traditional human-centered, "conqueror" attitudes towards nature. But it is unclear why such examples support the land ethic specifically, as opposed to biocentricism or some other nature-friendly environmental ethic. Leopold also frequently appeals to modern ecology, evolutionary theory, and other scientific discoveries to support his land ethic. Some critics have suggested that such appeals may involve an illicit move from facts to values.  At a minimum, such critics claim, more should be said about the normative basis of Leopold's land ethic.