Your review of Robert Skidelsky’s Keynes: The Return of the Master (London: Allen Lane, 2009) begins promisingly, proceeds splendidly, and ends, well, most unreasonably (“The Keynes Comeback,” October 3, 2009). You point out that Skidelsky, as the author of a magisterial three-part biography of Keynes, knows more about him than any other scholar. In his new book he tries to refocus Keynesianism. In doing so, he claims that most modern economics is bunk. Great. Starting from Keynes’ fundamental insight that “radical” or “irreducible” uncertainty is at the root of economic instability, Skidelsky attacks the theoretical underpinnings of modern economics, which ignores uncertainty by relying on implausible mathematical constructs that offer false hopes in economic policy. Excellent. Having applauded his “withering” criticism of modern economics, which you consider “legitimate,” you go on a surprise attack: “Poking intellectual holes is easier than offering an alternative.” Are you kidding? Or are you perhaps confusing Skidelsky with Keynes himself? Having poked some welcome holes in modern economic theory, the valiant biographer has wisely left the alternative to the profession that has strayed off course since World War II.