The unemployment they predicted and the unemployment we got
Look at the chart below. It speaks for itself, and what it is saying, loud and clear, is that . . .
This chart says something else: Keynesianism is a giant scam. Obamanomics is a joke. Note . . .
Light blue line: What they predicted would happen if they didn’t borrow and spend almost a trillion dollars on the stimulus.
Dark blue line: What they promised would happen with the Stimulus.
So, they told us that the Stimulus would give us less that 8% unemployment in October 2009, to save us from the 9% they were predicting. What we actually got? 10%.
If the argument is that government spending alleviates unemployment, then why did unemployment go the other direction? Shouldn’t the takeaway be that government spending made things worse? (And yet they tell us that if they’d only spent more, then, THEN they could really have fixed things.
So how about May 2012?
They promised the Stimulus would get us 5.7%, to save us from the 6.1% that they predicted would happen without the Stimulus. What we actually got? 8.2
Again, if government spending can have alleviate unemployment, then why did the number go in the WRONG direction?
If they wish to insist that government spending can have an impact, then these results indicate that the impact was destructive. If they want to claim that things would have been even worse without the spending, where is their evidence? Where are the data. They’ve been claiming this for almost 100 years. It has yet to be demonstrated to work.
Anyone up for trying something new?