Mending Keynes' (1936) Multiplier and Appraising Ahiakpor's (2001) Associated Article

Abstract

"Keynes' (1936) investment multiplier" (KIM) theory has acquired the "endless free play" of its criticisms. More recent criticism against it has been disclosed by Ahiakpor (2001). Among the tally of criticisms, this article is a "new password" in the sense that despite Ahiakpor's (2001) criticism, further inconsistencies are still embedded in the KIM theory. The objectives of the present paper are threefold: (i)to correct the strangely persistent three propositional inconsistencies in the KIM theory, which were overlooked by the previous authors including Ahiakpor (2001), (ii)to suggest that few charges of Ahiakpor (2001) against the KIM theory are not adequate with respect to the comments of other authors, and (iii) to demonstrate that Ahiakpor's (2004) criticism is not confined to the "contribution," rather, it encompasses both the "contribution" and the "contributor," which is a denial of "irreducible moral values of humans".