I just realized that what is called "Keynesian stimulus" works differently when the government is starting off a situation of deficit. The math would produce different results, which makes me wonder why economists cannot spot it (I inject more perturbations and see massive fragility). In one case, to make an analogy to an individual, you can invest money you have on the side(assuming you've had suspluses [sic] from the past). In the other, you fragilize yourself by borrowing, and transfer the liabilities cross-generations. Patris delictum nocere nunquam debet filio. [A father should not leave liabilities to his son.]
But you can't expect economists to perturbate their models, or inject rigor in their arguments. They are the very same idiots after all who got us here.
That is Nassim Taleb, author of Fooled By Randomness, on Keynesian stimulus. Taleb was a keynote speaker at FPD Forum 2009. During his talk, he advised Bank economists to give up on regression analysis and take on jobs as taxi drivers. I suspect that economists only wish they had as much power to influence policy as Taleb gives them credit for.