January 5, 2010
The Economics of the Microsoft Case
January 5, 2010
The Economics of Illegal Drugs
January 5, 2010
Intellectuals and Society
January 5, 2010
Thinking Outside the House
January 5, 2010
FP2P Watch
January 5, 2010
The Books I Wish My Colleagues Would Write
January 4, 2010
Predictably Irrational or Predictably Rational?
January 4, 2010
My Sowell-mate on the Knowledge-Power Discrepancy
January 4, 2010
FP2P Watch
It didn't work in the 1930's either.
If you are going to make comparisons to the 1930s your charts should include 1930s data to demonstrate the points you are making.
Surely the stimulus is not 'irrelevant'? Surely such large changes in the economy must, overall, either benefit or harm the prospects of growth?
The data and analysis you present appears to make the argument that the percentage of the workforce which can be put to work by economic stimulus is much smaller than in previous decades. This would suggest to me that the stimulus should be smaller than traditional Keynesian analysis would suggest, not that fiscal stimulus is useless. My best guess is that you believe the amount is such a small percentage of the overall economy that targeting stimulus to the appropriate sectors would either be impossible, not worth the trouble, or too politically difficult. As bgc states, your conclusion is incredibly simplified, but I guess column space is what it is.