Yes. I believe as long as there is a monopolistic system there is no solution.
Political convictions are matters of conscience. They are analogous to religious convictions. Keynesian economics isn’t practiced because it is sound; it’s practiced because some theory of nation-state economic management is needed by those who have a preexisting political conviction for the nation-state. Keynesian economics is an operating program for a nation-state. It doesn’t matter that the program is flawed. If you want to run the machine you need a program.
Libertarian economics is rejected because it implies a step by step dismantling of the nation-state, which conflicts with the preexisting political convictions of those who want to run or operate the nation-state. They are not looking for instructions on how to dismantle the state, they’re looking for instructions on how to run it. They know the difference.
Libertarian economics implies liberalization, lessening of political controls, and eventually freedom of political association.
The economic policies proposed by libertarians imply a gradual dismantling of the state. That is why they are rejected. To tell a statist to implement libertarian economic policies is to tell him to begin to dismantle his society, and to get ready to change his position in society. Understandably, S & K politely decline the invitation.
Given the current state of technology, it might be time for libertarians to consider ways to erect their own communities, even if only in nascent or symbolic form. Begin to fill the void. Find creative ways to begin libertarian communities across territorial and geographic borders utilizing the Internet.
I suggest substituting the term “sound economics” for “libertarian economics”. I do not believe economics is “libertarian”, etc. It is value free. Economics is either “sound” or “unsound”. The libertarian political philosophy follows naturally from the conclusions of sound economics.
I like the idea you describe of “filling the void” as a more productive strategy than countering every mainstream economic proposal that claims it will “fix” the economy. I now see that is a waste of time.
If anyone is interested, I made a post that slowly works through what I consider a devastating argument against falsificationism. You can find it here.
The thing is that as long there is some capitalism, free markets will be blamed. I fear that the world will have to reach a North Korea level to “free markets” stop taking the blame.
Could it not simply be that libertarians and/ or Austrians aren’t making convincing arguments? Or, perhaps more correctly, those Austrians that do make persuasive arguments are being rewarded as such. I’ll run the risk of being called a GMU fanboy and point out the success of Peter Leeson, whose had success that most young “mainstream” economists would be envious of.
At the OP, are Stiglitz and Krugman the best the mainstream has to offer? Well, find a mainstream economist and ask them, I’m sure they’ll get quite a giggle out of the notion that Krugman is important in mainstream circles. Look, Krugman started being irrelevant to the profession a while back, him and his buddy DeLong.