It's become rather in vogue these days to throw 20th century economist John Maynard Keynes under the bus for "cluelessly" suggesting that fiscal stimulus is a good countermeasure to recessions and depressions.

Problem is, we're blaming Keynes for stimulus not working on our current balance sheet recession — where previously high levels of borrowing to buy "malinvestments" that will never pay for themselves has left us somewhat broke — when all Keynes ever claimed was that stimulus was appropriate during a business cycle recession.

You see, business cycle recessions occur when people have bought enough cars, houses, and washing machines to last themselves for a while, but industry is still producing at full tilt. When that happens, it's entirely appropriate for government to buy more of the things it needs like bridges, military hardware, new government buildings, and the like, until the citizenry's "durable goods" have worn out and they return to the marketplace to replace them. Business cycle recessions typically last a year or two, and then the government steps back.

Balance sheet recessions, however, typically require longer periods of about five to seven years for people to pay enough of their debt down to feel good about consuming again. And interestingly, people did just that after the financial crisis of 2008, but our government neutralized their good efforts by countering every bit (and more) of U.S. consumer "deleveraging" by increasing its own debt, something that consumers will have to pay off eventually anyway too.

So if you still want to throw someone under the bus, pick on former White House economic adviser Larry Summers, or perhaps those current politicians who either don't know the difference between these two types of recessions, or who do but timidly fear the notion of giving their constituents any bad news.

But leave Keynes alone — he knew of what he spoke.

Larry Smith, Timonium