This is the simplest way to describe Keynesianism:

Obviously, the author's political views obscure an understanding of how Keynes' economic policies shaped the modern world, and continue to do so. With a name like Dial Yer Turd In, what do you expect?

Obviously the author has no clue about Keynsian economics or macro econ in general. I think a better analogy is the child's game of musical chairs. When the music stops some country gets the short stick. Right now it happens to be Greece but there are a half dozen countries lined up right behind them. The real problem with Keynsian econ is that it is a circular flow and once it globalized there is no new injection of capital unless aliens from outer space arrive with new mediums of exchange. Thus, all capital increases are due to revaluation due to inflation not necessarily due to increased value of goods or services. Therefore, one can argue that provided individual income rises correspondingly then inflation is really an illusion based on the printed face value rather than the underlying true value. There is no perfect econ model in reality but the "trickle-down" theory from Arthur Laugher (I know he spells it differently but the spelling is appropriate to his theories of economics - a total brainless idiot) of the "bottom up" economics of communism models we see in North Korea for example. No real industry and reliance upon the proletariat for GDP. IMHO

I don't get it. Could someone please explain it to me?

Not sure how to interpret the photo but it seems to be saying this construct goes nowhere. If this is a correct interpretation then I think it's a completely false and contemptuous depiction of Keynesianism. The man's theories revolutionized economic thought and strategies and ended the Great Depression of the 30's and laid the foundation for worldwide economic growth thereafter. Even today his advocacy of increasing aggregate demand to bring equilibrium and sustainable growth to economies proves how sound and effective were his theories.