I'd LOOOOOOOVE to hear more about the theory that Keynesian economics "took down" Detroit (and also the other major US cities). LOL.
It's not so much Keynesian (It is to an extent) as it is the argument in Macro Economics of "BUTTER or GUNS".
Keynesian Theory has provisions for expanded government and controls in time of recession and economic slow down.
Detroit encompasses over Reaching Government with a failure to Balance "BUTTER or GUNS".
The BUTTER OR GUNS ARGUMENT asks which is better to produce? BUTTER or GUNS?
BUTTER representing consumer Goods and Social welfare programs or
GUNS representing Industry and Manufacturing.
The Keynesian part of Detroit involved GOVERNMENT feeding an ever self inflating Government. Encompassing Elected Officials and Municipal workers that kept growing even when there was economic downturn. This compounded the problems of the city because as population declined and Government grew to control the economy it was in effect destroying revenue streams by driving out business with higher and higher taxes needed to feed the municipal beast. Eventually those salaries and pensions overburdened the system and we are where we're at today. But the Keynesian Model doesn't apply 100% to Detroit.
They invested in WAY too much Butter.. Spent too much on social programs and never decreased the municipal workforce. In effect they were selling their future to pay for the period between 1960 and 2013. They needed to Cultivate industry in order to provide for the BUTTER needed by the people.
In effect... they lost their ability to Make Guns and all they could do was provide the Butter for the people.
The Butter or Guns model is not particularly effective in a free market Macro-Economic system.
It was doomed to fail from 1960...
I want to that Professor McCloskey for teaching me that back in my Labor Economics Class....
But a fair question on your part