I tried to read Tom's response, which I have to assume was meant to elucidate his ideas about producers taking in each others' products, or something like that. It made no sense at all.

As near as I can tell, Tom's theory depends on money having a memory of where it came from; in other words, it acquires a "taint" depending on whether it came from honest entrepreneurship, or from "looting".

So if "looters" take their ill-gotten loot (tax money) and give it to "moochers" to buy a home (e.g. a vet with a VA-subsidized loan), the carpenters and roofers and painters and glaziers and the rest who at some point built it, the real estate agent who sold it, the mortgage broker who did the papework, the construction company and its suppliers...all are transformed from "producers" into...what? Derivative moochers? Just because they touched "stimulus" money?

I'd call it voodoo economics, but that name's already taken.

You're right that the argument is contrived to counter Keynesian theory. That's because Keynes understood that money has no memory (and certainly no conscience), and that money injected into the system at any point begins producing results as soon as it's put to work. By anybody. Even the 47% moochers.

My god, the capitalist side is sitting on trillions, supposedly waiting for the "uncertainty" to subside. Is static money even real? Doesn't it have to move to exist? Yes, some of the capitalist stash does need to be redistributed and put back in circulation. How the hell else do you get the economy moving again? Great wealth has become a goddam beaver dam blocking the river. Blow it up. Set the money free! Wheee!