You see, this is where history and economics differ. You look at a number on a chart, and say "this happened then, and so did this" and assume there is causation. However, in economics, you have to study things one change at a time. It is not so easy to look at historical data and impute anything from it without rigorous stochastic analysis. But then again, you can go ahead and dismiss the last 100 or so years of economic theory with your trite little sayings. After all, this is a free country.
I believe there is a causation because no one has yet to prove otherwise. There are numerous examples of the outcome being repeated. You spout a theory that has historical and factual data proving that it leads to an inferior result. I can point to Keynesian policies that are recognized to have improved the economic climate. You cannot.
It is a free country. I choose to live in a country that recognizes that facts matter. As oppposed to the typical conservative lives in a contemporary mindset that ignores facts. It was one of the many reasons why conservatives were so surprised when Obama beat Romney by such a significant margin. Especially given the number of conservative sources who were spouting the belief that Romney was going not only going to win, but win by a landslide.
So it is the same with the conservative beliefs in economic policy. A great example being the belief that raising taxes will kill economic recovery. There is no empirical evidence to support that belief. In fact that seems to be the current conservative stochastic methodology when discussing economic issues.
Live in the bubble. Die in the bubble.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.
Сделай Америку великой снова