One thing Krugman may have overlooked. As far as "spending on bombs being as good as spending on public parks" is concerned, Kalecki's OTHER point is particularly germane:
1. One of the important functions of fascism, as typified by the Nazi system, was to remove capitalist objections to full employment.
The dislike of government spending policy as such is overcome under fascism by the fact that the state machinery is under the direct control of a partnership of big business with fascism. The necessity for the myth of 'sound finance', which served to prevent the government from offsetting a confidence crisis by spending, is removed. In a democracy, one does not know what the next government will be like. Under fascism there is no next government.
The dislike of government spending, whether on public investment or consumption, is overcome by concentrating government expenditure on armaments. Finally, 'discipline in the factories' and 'political stability' under full employment are maintained by the 'new order', which ranges from suppression of the trade unions to the concentration camp. Political pressure replaces the economic pressure of unemployment.
So, yes, "spending on bombs is as good as spending on public parks" -- even better (if you're a fascist)! By the way, Professor Krugman. You still haven't replied to my earlier letter.