John Maynard Keynes is dead and should be treated as such. He was an economist who championed the notion that In recessions the aggregate demand of economies falls. In other words, businesses and people tighten their belts and spend less money. Lower spending results in demand falling further and a vicious circle ensues of job losses and further falls in spending. Keynes’s solution to the problem was that governments should borrow money and boost demand by pushing the money into the economy. Once the economy recovered, and was expanding again, governments should pay back the loans.This Keynesian model of economics is demonstrated in our governments fetish to stimulate the economy. This Keynesian model is again proven ineffective and in fact a failure. GOVERNMENT SPENDING SLOWS GROWTH !
Art Laffer Breaks it down.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444873204577537244225685010.html
“Federal government spending as a share of GDP rose to a high of 27.3% in 2009 
from 21.4% in late 2007. This increase is virtually all stimulus spending,
including add-ons to the agricultural and housing bills in 2007, the $600 per
capita tax rebate in 2008, the TARP and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailouts,
“cash for clunkers,” additional mortgage relief subsidies and, of course,
President Obama’s $860 billion stimulus plan that promised to deliver
unemployment rates below 6% by now. Stimulus spending over the past five years
totaled more than $4 trillion.”
Also, ” every dollar of public-sector spending on stimulus simply wiped out a dollar of
private investment and output, resulting in an overall decline in GDP. This is
an even more astonishing result because government spending is counted in
official GDP numbers. In other words, the spending was more like a Valium for
lethargic economies than a stimulant”.
So what are we to make of this ? The worlds’ economy is used as a control group and government interventions slows growth. When we hear politicians talk of “infrastructure spending helping the economy” or intervention “saved G.M” we know that they are lying to us. As a matter of fact G.M still owes us 42 BILLION . GM owes $27 billion on the nearly $50 billion it received from the auto bailout and Ally Bank, the company’s lending arm, owes $14.7 billion of the $17.2 billion taxpayer-funded bailout it received.
PLUS G.M enjoys a $45.4 billion tax exemption that could leave it tax-free for years. GM will be able to shield its future profits using past losses using so-called “tax-loss carry-forwards,” the Wall Street Journal reports. Companies that have recently changed ownership aren’t supposed to be able to take full advantage of those, but a little-noticed ruling last year exempted TARP companies from that restriction.
The auto bailout is separate and apart from the over 1 Trillion dollar stimulus bills. According to the Hoover institute, That money went to states and other entities and was in the most part squandered. http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/Where-Did-Stimulus-Go-Commentary-1-2011.pdf
We “borrowed” all that wasted stimulus money by selling bonds to other governments. China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, god knows who.
As of May 31, 2011, over 14 TRILLION ($14,344,668,281,211.01) in public debt was outstanding, according to the Treasury’s “to the penny” calculation. The U.S. population at the end of May was 312.25 million. That’s everyone — not just adults and civilians. If you divide the total debt owed by the total number of Americans, you find that each one owes $45,939.
So tell your friends that they and their kids EACH OWES 46 THOUSAND DOLLARS to foreign governments due in no small part to the statist manipulation and confiscation device known as stimulus spending .
dixiezen 
I must disagree. Yes common knowledge of Keynesian economics is to pump money into the economy when the economy is in a slump but giving money to banks and the auto industry does not really fit the definition of economic stimulation. That fits the definition of company bailout for mis-spending. Keynes did say the Government should put money into the economy in times of recession but he never said the money should be borrowed. The money was to come from a tax surplus. Our Government so commonly misappropriates money that the United States NEVER had a tax surplus and furthermore we can’t say it does not work based on the $600 stimulus, because $600 to the American people barely feeds a family of 4 for 3 weeks. That can hardly be called a stimulus.
The 13 trillion borrowed has been mis spent along with the rest of the people’s money and this man on the site above should be ashamed for even trying to use the current situation to discount a theory from the late 1930’s…..
Your distinction is without a difference because it supposes a situation that is never reality.
Whats the color of the sky in the world you live in ? In the real world the sky is blue and the government NEVER runs a surplus so It is generally accepted as true that keynes proposed borrowing to stimulate. I have read this on meynardkeynes.org and from official Government documents as well.
That being said, I would refer you to Milton Friedman. And furthermore suggest that our society and free market capitalism is better served when there is LESS government involvement in the market, not more.
IT is curious that one would choose to defend profligate government spending in any form. The only money government has is what it confiscates from the citizens or secures in their name. So if there is a so-called surplus, that money belongs to the people, not in a slush fund for rainy days.
Try reading Keynes book “The General Theory of Employment”. I am not disagreeing with the argument itself…. You are correct the government has too much power but to discount a policy that has actually never trully been implemented discounts your argument. Page 46 of the book mentioned above points out that stimulus money is to be spent on PUBLIC WORKS and I have not seen where money has been spent to CREATE jobs….money given to banks and the auto industry was for money they already OWED…. it did not create jobs. There is the fallacy of your argument.
I think Milton Friedman refuted that book in Free to Choose . A great defence of free market capitalism by Friedman.
I take your point re: what was the theory and what our government said they were doing. Maybe thats why i posted this piece in “lies my government told me”.
Thanks so very much for the pleasent conversation and I enjoyed your insight and knowledge.
Cheers !!