A powerful economic idea is that government spending is good during times of recession (‘slack’).
The only argument for it that I think I understand is that stimulus holds back the tide of atrophy in human capital. A common corollary focuses on the greatest economic calamity of the 20th century and its supposed ‘cure‘. Wars as stimulus. Ok, got it.
Well, in response, I’d say that I find this unsurprising.
Nearly 30 percent of young veterans end up unemployed for some length of time after returning home. Critics say it’s a combination of poor transitional training by the Pentagon and ignorance in the private sector about the soldiers’ skills.
As an employer, my healthy respect for veterans is tempered by the fact that they’re learning skills I don’t find useful and that wars are extremely destructive to human capital. So the answer is government jobs? Is that stimulus, too?
Another thing that I find irritating is that I can’t get it out of my head that people confuse rates and levels on this. If you destroy humans and things, can you really deem the scurrying around to rebuild a boom?