But, here is how the conversation went, genius:
Background: Keynesians believe that during economic crisis, we need gov't to step in and spend money to stimulate the economy while no one else is.
The OP posted an article erroneously claiming that economists felt that the stimulus didn't stimulate. An anti-keynesian claimed that keynesian theory doesn't work except in the short term. I stated that this thread IS about the short term situation of an economic crisis (implying that we want short term stimulus).
Someone started an analogy about cake and vegetables which muddied the waters, probably because the analogy is exceedingly limited.
Am I not summarizing this conversation correctly?
In any case, times like these are PRECISELY the moment for Keynesian stimulus. The one thing we were not doing is keeping our budget in order during the Bush administration so that we could borrow with confidence right now for the stimulus. So, if you're saying we're in too bad of shape long term budget wise for deficit spending based stimulus, you might be right on that count. But, the stimulus will still have (and has had) its positive effect.
I consider classic economics the simple model that applies much of the time. I consider keynesian stimulus notions a model that applies during times when markets fail to act in the rational way classicists say they are supposed to, and the irrationality results in an anomalous crisis. Keynes is the Einstein to Adam Smith's Newton.
The financial crisis and the housing bubble is exactly the sort of irrational thing that is NOT supposed to happen, according to classic theory. The irrational overwrought contraction that occurs during the correction to the crisis is also not supposed to happen. Keynes helps us navigate the reality of the market's irrationality.