The Keynesian fallacy that spending borrowed money is a good way to get out of an economic slump keeps being proposed by Keynesians.
But it makes me wonder: what do we do about the slump caused by the borrowing (and having to pay back the interest& the principal)? It might be better to prevent the slump in the first place, so stop messing with the currency supply. Devaluating it, in order to pay back the borrowed money.
Instead of roads to nowhere https://ludwigvanel.wordpress.com/2017/11/09/lessons-in-economics-from-pop-culture/, Paul Krugman has proposed to veign alarm of an alien invasion, to stimulate spending on weapons of destruction (whether mass, or individual). While it may be true that such spending gets the economy out of a slump for the time being, it sets up the following slump. By requiring that a government steals more money (raises taxes) and spends less.
The latter is a good thing, of course, but only if preceded by less taxation.
What is wrong with “defense” spending? (Apart from it always being offensive spending) The fact that destructive spending always ends up costing money, and not yielding income. Aka it is unproductive. Meaning all the money spent on it, has now disappeared from the wealth ever available on earth.
When those roads / space ships / weapons have been built, nothing can be built with them, only unbuilt (destroyed). A road that goes from somewhere to somewhere else can serve to transport goods or people between the places. A gun can only be used to steal stuff from someone, this someone will either:
steal from someone else in a spread-the-poverty kind of system, or:
retalliate, making everyone worse off.