The economic recession isn’t due to a lack of money in the market, but because the poor have no money. Essentially, the money isn’t circulating; it’s all been stuck in the banking system, turning into deposits and low-risk assets. No matter how much money the rich have, their consumption is still limited.
On the other hand, the poor want to spend but have no money, which gradually leads to excess production capacity in the market. This causes companies to start competing in a race to the bottom, driving profits to dangerously low levels, which sets off a vicious cycle. As company profits decrease, they scale back and lay off employees, making the poor even poorer, and savings become too risky to touch.
The fact that the poor have no money is a natural result of the concentration of wealth that capitalism inevitably leads to. In order to prevent a complete paralysis of the economy, benefits and social support measures appear, which are innocently presented as something due. Whereas any social benefit is a veiled injection of socialism. And this feeding of the economy with benefits began a long time ago, several decades ago. At best, social support is presented as a monetary measure, whereas in fact it is often also a measure pursuing political goals.
The difference between "giving benefits" and "giving jobs" is the same as between socialism and Keynesianism. This does not mean that social support is something bad. This is just another proof that capitalism is finite. Because, by and large, neither Stiglitz nor Piketty has a solution to the problem of wealth concentration.