No, not at all. It means counter-cyclical at all times. In good times, you save, in bad times you spend.
You need to read up on your econoimcs.
the better advice would be, you change your prof :wink:
no, serious
this understanding of keynes is one reason why we are in this mess...
sinc the 70´s he politics trys it and fails all the time. take a look at the long time scales and you will see hat really happened to our economy.
in special at the 70´s, the politic tried it massivly.
and what happened???
instead of a 12 year cycle of growth, with useually 4% growth a year, we got a 13 year cycle with less then 3% a year. the period of growth was shorter and less strong (cause the gov had to save money) and the recession got longer but only a bit less heavy
the other effect was, the debts started to grow, cause it was impossible to pack back as mutch as they spend.
That's exactly what it says to do. You don't understand economics.
This also hasn't been whats happened, so you don't have history either.
No, since the 70's we've been seeing "spend in good times and bad times" which is not Keynesian at all.
i am really afraid of how wrong you are. - what you see as "spending in good and bad times" is the flop of a try of cuts.
it is nearly impossible to get all the money back you spend. its by simple MATH and a bit of undestanding in ecomomy to understand :tongue:
keynes theory was published and based on the experience of the big depression. and everyone should reed it in that context...
also isnt keynes right in every point. there are a few other who discribed the economy way better.