In your opinion if you had to make a choice between attempting to inflate wages, or allowing the price of a carrot to go down, which situation do you think would cost less money, and be easier to accomplish?
We know that. The point of the "hole in the ground" element is to indicate that the carrot grower is not going to be using the money, and neither is the bank going to be loaning it unless there is demand for a loan--the hole in the ground is the bank, if there is no demand for money.
Robert can simply fire his employes when times go bad, the problem for Robert is that he has money tied into rapidly depreciating assets. Doctor's offices don't, nor does someone who owns a massage therapy business with employees.
Story rewind: Conservative versus liberal. We see the liberal side, give the money to the least productive citizen, Kofi. Others like Robert and Sylvie supposedly do all the work hoping for Kofi's gov't money while Kofi gets to sit around doing nothing. Robert still has no harvest money and liberals don't care, so he must take out a loan or ask Sylvie to wait for Kofi's money. When all is said and done Kofi has no incentive to do anything except go back to doing nothing and await his next payment from Obama. Notice where all the risk is? what if Kofi decides he wants beer instead? OK so here's the supply side: Give the money to Robert as a tax break instead with the stipulation that he must harvest ASAP. He hires BOTH Kofi and Sylvie assuming that Kofi is willing since he wants to eat. Now everyone has contributed to production and everyone gets to eat.