The Krugman/Wells case is that Keynesian policies are not being followed because the rich are preventing such. They write:
So how did we end up in this state? How did America become a nation that could not rise to the biggest economic challenge in three generations, a nation in which scorched-earth politics and politicized economics created policy paralysis?How can Krugman/Wells write this stuff with a serious face. Do they realize how many Keynesian trillions have been pumped into the economy? Have they listened to billionaires Boone Pickens, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison, Sheldon Adelson, Michael Bloomberg, George Soros and Bill Gates? These guys are opportunists who regularly play footsie with the government and that's if they aren't outright warmongers. What billionaires are Krugman/Wells thinking about that are anti-government intervention in the economy? There are none.
We suggest it was the inequality that did it. Soaring inequality is at the root of our polarized politics, which made us unable to act together in the face of crisis. And because rising incomes at the top have also brought rising power to the wealthiest, our nation’s intellectual life has been warped, with too many economists co-opted into defending economic doctrines that were convenient for the wealthy despite being indefensible on logical and empirical grounds...
In 2008 we suddenly found ourselves living in a Keynesian world — that is, a world that very much had the features John Maynard Keynes focused on in his 1936 magnum opus, “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.” By that we mean that we found ourselves in a world in which lack of sufficient demand had become the key economic problem, and in which narrow technocratic solutions, like cuts in the Federal Reserve’s interest rate target, were not adequate to that situation. To deal effectively with the crisis, we needed more activist government policies, in the form both of temporary spending to support employment and efforts to reduce the overhang of mortgage debt.
One might think that these solutions could still be considered technocratic, and separated from the broader question of income distribution. Keynes himself described his theory as “moderately conservative in its implications,” consistent with an economy run on the principles of private enterprise. From the beginning, however, political conservatives — and especially those most concerned with defending the position of the wealthy — have fiercely opposed Keynesian ideas.
It's total interventionist propaganda to write that modern day government connected rich are against government bailouts and money printing. Goldman Sachs, JPMorganChase, Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein couldn't survive in a free market environment.
Bottom line: Krugman's analysis doesn't get any better even when he has his wife helping him.