The Keynes, Schumpeter, Minsky tradition holds that equilibrium is a goal but not an intrinsic feature of political economy. Beyond that, political action can result in differing equilibria, some better some worse. At the micro level numerous equilibria exist and serve the pricing function, but they are an emergent property of the system when it’s being managed well, not an intrinsic property of a self governing system. And the reason they see it that way is they all saw money and banking as central to capitalism, in fact money and banking are precisely what distinguishes an economy as capitalist. And they didn’t propose to eliminate banking, they proposed to optimize it for national utility, quite different from socializing it.
The ISLM, DSGE and their spawn, the dominant models now are all descendants of Samuelson not Keynes. The absurd fallacy these models all assume is the irrelevance of money and the absence of a banking sector. These are models that describe something other than a capitalist economy. When you have 20 minutes watch this and consider the wisdom of these assumptions. I believe there is a central issue of framing separating Krugman along with the mainstream from possibilities of really progressive positions, from the possibility of actual solutions and it is inherent in this essential defect in their models. I think the centrality of credit, money and banking to capitalism is the fundamental blind spot of mainstream macro economics and as a consequence our politics generally: we won’t find the right track until we illuminate this blind spot, the only thing "the veil of money" really obscures is its own centrality to power.