Of course the Wall Street Journal won't like Cristina Kirchner, they are one of the most pro-corporate journals out there. Argentina had to default on her debts during the last crisis despite being the poster child economy of the IMF and have since moved away from being corporate friendly (i.e by kicking US debt creditors into touch) something the WSJ would of course take issue with even though Argentina has largely recovered from the mess the IMF helped put it in. This has put it at odds with the US and hence she get's demonised.
And Kaz your understanding of classical Keynesian is one sided. Yes it caused stagflation but it also caused massive economic growth, one of the largest egalitarian growth the world has ever witnessed. The current financial crisis was caused by the Milton Friedman neo liberal economic school of thought (of which the WSJ was a proponent) and is way worse than the stagflation that occurred under the Keynesian model.
And Government intervention has always existed. Even over the last 30 years under the neo-liberal finance based making money out of money economic model. Governments always pay for the risk by investing in the hi-tech sector by funding programs whether it be at MIT or Lockheed Martin. Once the risk is mitigated then eventually the profits can be privatised by various competing companies and sold to the public as 'choice'. But the initial risk is always paid for by the State (i.e taxpayers).
