This all goes beyond caricaturing a school of thought that you're not immersed in. To some extent that happens all the time and is more or less forgivable as long as people are open to others clarifying and providing nuance. This seems to me to be well below even mises.org's already relatively low standards for comprehension of Keynesianism (which is not to say that there aren't mises.org commenters that do have a good grasp of Keynesianism of course). What is most disconcerting is that
WayneWilliam Anderson: "To answer Daniel, there is NOTHING in the Keynesian view that allows an economy to recover without government spending. Look at the theory; what would permit the economy to move back to full employment if the government does not "stimulate" it with more spending?
Tell me this: Does Krugman have ANY reason to believe that the economy could return to full employment EVER if the government does not act? I think that is a legitimate question. It is not enough to say that I am declaring an absurdity. Read Krugman and tell me if he believes that ANY economy can operate without lots and lots of government spending." [emphasis mine]
Daniel Kuehn: "William - You're the one making the undemonstrated claim. You can't claim Krugman thinks it would never recover, and when I challenge you on it and ask for times he said it would never recover then challenge me to find alternative incidents. Don't make the claim if you can't back it up.
As for Keynesians - of course it can recover without government stimulus. Anything that shifts aggregate demand will do the trick. Real balance effects can do the trick. Wage declines can do the trick under certain conditions (not others). Capital obsolescence. A decline in liquidity preference. Hell, why not a simple black-box "return of animal spirits". Of course Keynesians think the economy can recover without the government - I'm a little suprised you didn't realize it.
The case is that under certain conditions the recovery will be slow, painful, rigid, and all unnecessarily so. The key here is "under certain conditions" - those conditions being a demand-driven recession like this one, not a supply-shock recession like we've experienced in the past.
Now - can you back up the claim that Krugman ever thought that the economy would never recover, or can't you?"
Lawrence Klein has the best line addressing Anderson's misconception:
"It is wrong to think that Keynes’ system fails if it cannot predict pessimistic results. The pessimism is not inherent in this system; instead the determinants behind the system make it operate either pessimistically or optimistically, depending on the current state of affairs in economic and non-economic life." (Klein 1966)