So I’ve been reading more economy and what not, but I could use your help. How do you start tackling an article like this? Most people will focus on the graph so let’s start with that?
Assuming, arguendo, that the argument is right so far as it goes:
“Worked” in what sense?
No one disputes that with enough borrowing–that is, transferring wealth from the future to the present–one can jolt current consumption. Is this rocket science?
Is there ever a point at which these people conclude that it’s immoral to pile more debt on posterity so that we can benefit today? (NB: rhetorical question)
The other thing is that the stated goal of the “stimulus” supporters is to take money from those who save and invest and give to those whose income is proportionally more devoted to current consumption. Reducing savings and investment reduces society’s future wealth.
This is an equivocation of the word “worked.”
What their arguments support for the meaning of “worked:” the stimulus created a short term deferral of pain like “hair of the dog.”
What they are trying to suggest by the meaning of “worked:” the stimulus avoided the crisis altogether and put us on route to prosperity.
Most people read the article and think the latter, but the only thing the article supports is the former.
.
