re: #4 Bob Levin

That’s true, I didn’t go into detail. But they’re not talking points, since I’m not on anyone’s side.

That’s without merit. You clearly are showing a gigantic bias against the Democrats.

History. Kayser was building ships at an unheard of rate. That’s all. It’s a question of management. Somehow the stimulus didn’t translate into greater velocity. So, why did this happen? If my theory is flawed, and it might be, I’ll listen to another.

But the stimulus did translate into greater velocity at the points where we expected it to, like food stamps. The stimulus was too weak and far too much of it was tax cuts.

I have no idea what your theory even is. It’s not well-formed enough to be a theory.

History. Kayser was building ships at an unheard of rate. That’s all.

I’m sorry, you’re offering a single anecdotal piece of evidence as support for your conclusion?

What about comparing private insurers to medicare/medicaid, and noting the incredibly low overhead of the latter compared to the former? Public insurance is far more efficient than private insurance. How can that be, in your one-sided view of things?

I said that no one on Capital Hill makes the connection between the economy and velocity.

Obama does, given how much he pushed spending like food stamps and other programs that go right back into the economy. He’s actually spent quite some time discussing this issue. As has Waxman.

I guess I’m on the side of velocity.

Not really, no. I do believe that you think that you are, but increasing government spending in a recession to increase the velocity of money is economics 101. And it’s demonstrably provable, not just with the Great Depression here in the US, but in terms of the US states that have and have not engaged in ‘austerity measures’. Those that are spending least are recovering slowest.