roman_mir's Journal: How much is enough for a Keynesian?

Back in 2009 Paul Krugman said this about the 787 Billion dollar bail out

The $787 billion stimulus is not nearly enough to fill the "well over $2 trillion hole" in the economy, Krugman said. "A fair bit of the bill is not really stimulus," he adding, noting that just about $650 billion would actually spur consumer spending and other types of stimulus.

Now, if that in Paul Krugman's eyes wasn't 'big enough' to fix the problem, then I assume he wanted a much bigger bail out, correct?

Now we find out that the real bail out was given out by the federal reserve and it was at least 7.7 TRILLION dollars, that's 11 times the official bail out voted by the US Congress. Even that's not true. The bail out was over 13 TRILLION.

The obvious failures of Keynesian ideas are immediately obvious - it's never big enough, they say. Well, what if it was bigger than your GDP? Is that big enough?

It's always easy to say for a Keynesian - the bail out is not big enough so that's why the economy didn't recover. Then the truth about the actual size of the bail out comes out. What now? What now?

Will Krugman say now that the real bail out should have been not 7 or 13 Trillion but instead it should have been 700 Trillion to have worked?

Should it have been 700 Quadrillion?

What now? When will it become obvious even to the most dense Keynesian followers that their ideology is fatally flawed?

Agreed. Keynesianism is mental defect.

[jefe7777]

Keynesians will keep pumping cash into this half dead system, from the top down. Funny how some people get bent out of shape and throw "trickle down" around like it's a dirty phrase, yet this is the biggest trickle down scam of all.

Governments allow trillions to be created by the world's central banks, which get pushed out to the member banks, and so forth, because helping them, is helping us. Or that's the theory.

Except the banks themselves are infused with so much paper, from the top down, that's it's distorting priorities and decisions that are supposed to be market based.

What need does a bank have for the public's deposits when governments and central banks are going to pump trillions into their ledgers?

Because a contraction was not allowed to happen, mal investors never punished, the haze was never allowed to clear. We have no clear signals, nor direction. The central banks, the member banks, the large multinational banks, the regional and local banks, they're all supposed to be competing with each other, but since they are being propped up to varying degrees, there is no clarity, the stronger banks have no clear data that the mal investors have been removed from the market, and no clear data that rock bottom has been hit or is near, so they have no confidence in making long term investments, or even medium term ones, they will not invest in businesses or infrastructure, because even though all of them are propped up, they are still in competition with each other, except these days, it's liquidity and balance sheet competition, none of those institutions knowing for sure how long the game can go on. So what do they do? They take their paper and gamble with it, in short term, massive 50-to-1 and higher bets, on the various markets, distorting futures, stocks, bonds, derivatives, any and all paper assets.

The banks care little about the public's money. They have an unlimited supply from the public's government. The banks will just keep playing balance sheet games, gambling like addicts in Las Vegas, with all their paper manipulation, and buy up real assets from desperate countries and the people, with their invented wealth.

Exactly.

[The Insane One]

You can change someone's values. It's much harder to change their beliefs. This would apply here.