There are two ideas of the Austrians and the Keynesians that both seem true that I have a hard time reconciling. The Keynesian idea that depressions are caused

There are two ideas of the Austrians and the Keynesians that both seem true that I have a hard time reconciling. The Keynesian idea that depressions are caused by everyone cutting back at the same time, and results in a downward positive feedback loop that can be combated by government spending makes sense. But at the same time, Krugman asserts that there is no reason unemployment should rise because of a previous misallocation of capital (ie a bubble), and that just doesn't seem right. When a bubble bursts, there are too many people who work in previously inflated industries, and their skill sets and geographic location are not things that change easily. People aren't going to learn a new trade, take a pay cut, or move unless there is a real threat to their livelihood if they continue doing what they are doing now. It seems like the classic conservative vs. liberal argument over social safety nets. Yes, we need safety nets to keep people's lives from being ruined by things largely outside their control. But at the same time, those safety nets introduce moral hazard, and the more bad situations you promise to protect people from, the more people who don't really need that safety net are going to take advantage of it.