The expectant birth of neo-classical-Keynesian-synthesis?

Comments on Steve Keen “Why neoclassical economics is dead”, 30/05/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/05/30/why-neoclassical-economics-is-dead/

I share some elements of Steve Keen's arguments, but I am not sure whether he is overshooting in terms of declaring neoclassical economics dead. The current great recession and the impotence of conventional economic policies is an indication of some of the problems with the current economics.

I personally did not share the keen enthusiasm of McTaggart, Findlay and Parkin on the healthy status of the current economics, as shown in my comments on their article. However, though maybe not as healthy as McTaggart et al claimed to be, current economics may not be as sick as Keen portrayed.

Economics is dynamic and not static. It develops and evolves. Keynes made huge contributions to economics and the establishment of macroeconomics. It took more than 70 years to have a great recession and the avoidance of it becoming another great depression proves the usefulness as well as the limitations of Keynesian theories.

In that light, I am more a fan of Samuelson in terms of neoclassical synthesis. Yes, there is a need to have some new theories to further prevent great depressions or great recessions and to deal with them when they do occur. But those theories will not necessarily bury all other useful theories.

It may be the case that the new theories will be useful in managing and dealing with great depressions, then Keynesian deals with milder business cycles, then classical theories prevail when the economy is in some sort of classical equilibrium. I would go with such a neo-classical-Keynesian-? synthesis.