In an effort to rescue some useful meaning from Keynes's famous quip "In the long run we are all dead," Nicholas J. Theocarakis first posts a text in French which I would not trouble myself to try and read or understand. It's been a rather long time since I took lessons in reading French. (Why wouldn't he translate the text, anyhow?) Then he cites Keynes's authorship of "The Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren" as evidence that he must have meant something perhaps more profound than the misleading nature of the words in the context in which Keynes (1923, 88) wrote them. Well, I have found that Keynes is quite capable of saying inconsistent things at different times. For example, regarding the operation of his expenditure multiplier effect, Keynes claims that "the logical theory of the multiplier ... holds good continuously, *without time-lag,* at all moments of time" (1936, 122). This drew criticisms from his contemporaries. Yet, he also writes that time is required for the "full effect" of the multiplier to be realized on employment and output (ibid., 122-5). Keynes also could, in effect, disown his young followers for circulating "modernist stuff, gone wrong and turned sour and silly" as well as to declare: "I am not a Keynesian" (Hutchison 1981, 122, 123). I think Nicholas should have gone to the text, "A Tract on Monetary Reform," in order to determine whether or not it is true that Keynes was criticizing, quite incorrectly, classical monetary analysis as not having provided explanations for the short run. If historians of economic thought wouldn't go back to the original texts to examine textual issues in dispute, I wonder who else would? Nicholas also writes: "Equally, James Ahiakpor's comment that 'increasing the rate of money creation may lower interest rates and increase real output and employment in the short term' reflects his [Keynes's] own views, but Keynes proposed a completely different mechanism for determining the level of the interest rate. His QJE 1937 article on GT makes that quite clear." True, Keynes had the vision of having the monetary authorities increase the quantity of money ("liquidity" or cash) so much so that the rate of interest might be reduced to zero. No point in holding society hostage to the need to pay the rentier class positive interest rates! He thought the classical argument that interest rates soon would rise, and not stay down, following the rise of prices was relevant only in the long run and in a situation of full employment. But he was deadly wrong. Countries in which their central banks have tried to reduce interest rates permanently with increased money (currency) creation have found out the hard way the classic truth. It doesn't work that way. Keynes (1936, 190-1) doubted that explanation from Ricardo's Principles. He might have found confirmation from J.S. Mill as well: "... in this case increase of currency really affects the rate of interest, but in the contrary way to that which is generally supposed; by raising, not by lowering it ... We thus see that depreciation, merely as such, while in process of taking place, tends to raise the rate of interest: and the expectation of further depreciation adds to this effect ..." (Works, 3: 656). James Ahiakpor