No, he's 100% wrong.
I credit the stimulus and the Federal Reserve giving away free money for giving the illusion of a recovery. We've done this by kicking the can down the road, not by fixing the cause. What he have now is not a recovery just because the data we choose to pick says it is. Less people are working, those that are working are working less and those that are working more are making less. Meanwhile, we spent a bunch of money to spur the economy using Wall Street as the vehicle. Does that make sense to people? They calculate unemployment rates by those who collect, how accurately does that portray the truth? There are economists who say that we are actually in worse shape than we were before but we are propped up by a money bubble. When that bubble bursts..... and they always do, we are great depression II.
You look so religious when you say things like this. Your faith is so strong you feel good about making a statement like 100% wrong!!.
Is it possible to post your own thoughts, ever?
"Until the 1980s the economy quickly got back to its previous level of employment. After the 1980s, however, economic recoveries took increasingly longer; the 2001 recovery was slower than the 1990 recovery, which in turn was slower than the 1980 recovery, which in turn was slower than earlier recoveries. This trend toward slower recoveries suggests that the nature of economic downturns was changing. But those changes were slow and gradual, and economists could reasonably argue that the changes were inconsequential. But, as you can see, the latest downturn was clearly a major change. As of 2013, six years after the beginning of the downturn employment was still significantly below what it had been before the recession began.
Quick, name a single instance where a country took a hands off approach and then didn't recover. If what you say is true you should be able to point at at least one instance. I can point to times when the handsoff approach led to quicker recoveries than others where intervention was used. This is a pretty good indication that you basing your opinion on faith and searched out economists who share your faith. I can point to other times where increased government intervention led to stagnation and lack of growth. 1980's, 90's Japan is the low hanging fruit, but 2010's US could also be a shiny example.
We don't need the actual war, just keep the machine humming is fine. We don't have to use the new toys, we just have to keep building them. Ask your buddies, that's called aggregate demand, they are big fans and push that line of thought not me.
No..one would be factual the other, absurd.
Sure, it's a fact that throughout history there has been downturns and upturns in the economy. If you think about it more than 2 seconds you would understand why one follows the other. For the majority of these periods, the size of one, dictated the size of the other. This too should be a logical conclusion. You with me so far?
actually it's not. i literally saw the people out there working thanks to the ARRA.
no they don't, you dolt.
austrian economics has no record of success anywhere in the world, at any time, for anyone, ever.
you can use math and statistics, but not if you are dumb, like you are.
ttystikk would debate you to pieces and leave you in tears in front of a large audience.
This structural stagnation is a direct result of the ever tighter right turn death spiral this country has been in since the Reagan administration. To see a stark example of what non intervention would look like in an economic recovery, one need look no further than the Great Depression. A trajectory we are surely repeating, as it seems we don't have the good sense to learn from our past mistakes.
the right does not want to.
This is all true now- meanwhile the open minded are and will be following along and making up their own minds. It is to them that both you and I are eventually speaking.
Whatever, I can ski and ice fish better than him!