I know I'm pissing in the wind here, but I'll try once more.
"To say that WWII was the stimulus is a bit naive as it, by itself, is not responsible for it. What we did, economically was the answer, and that was government spending on infrastructure, education, housing and business which helped jump start the economy. If we had chosen to not invest there would have been no growth. I just love revisionists."
Naive that WW2 was the stimulus? You make it sound like this was all a well planned exercise in Keynesian theory, implemented in all its glory for the world to see. Why don't we just stick with the facts. Our country was bombed and as a result, we suffered great losses. We then immediately entered the war (that was not a stimulus). How our government spent its resources was not due to Keynes, Capitalism, Communism, Marxism or any other abstract theory. It was the "How do we get the stuff we need to fight this war, as fast as humanely possible." theory. So all you're doing here is putting a label on something that happened, after the fact. Which brings me to my next, and final point.
"Why did we start turning back to Keynes in '07? Why is he getting more and more credit in economic circles. Why are his models being tried again? Why is Krugman making the rounds, globally, lending his expertise to help change the ridiculous course of austerity? Why is it having a positive effect when heeded?"
Why, why, why, can't you finally give me a simple example of a country using this Keynesian system, that's proven to work so well? This time I'm going to answer the question for you, because you obviously can't.
You're talking out your ass.
You're relabelling WW2 something it was not so you don't look like a jackass for suggesting some silly, unproven, moron theory, knowing full well its never been used successfully by anyone, anywhere.
"To say that WWII was the stimulus is a bit naive as it, by itself, is not responsible for it. What we did, economically was the answer, and that was government spending on infrastructure, education, housing and business which helped jump start the economy. If we had chosen to not invest there would have been no growth. I just love revisionists."
Naive that WW2 was the stimulus? You make it sound like this was all a well planned exercise in Keynesian theory, implemented in all its glory for the world to see. Why don't we just stick with the facts. Our country was bombed and as a result, we suffered great losses. We then immediately entered the war (that was not a stimulus). How our government spent its resources was not due to Keynes, Capitalism, Communism, Marxism or any other abstract theory. It was the "How do we get the stuff we need to fight this war, as fast as humanely possible." theory. So all you're doing here is putting a label on something that happened, after the fact. Which brings me to my next, and final point.
"Why did we start turning back to Keynes in '07? Why is he getting more and more credit in economic circles. Why are his models being tried again? Why is Krugman making the rounds, globally, lending his expertise to help change the ridiculous course of austerity? Why is it having a positive effect when heeded?"
Why, why, why, can't you finally give me a simple example of a country using this Keynesian system, that's proven to work so well? This time I'm going to answer the question for you, because you obviously can't.
You're talking out your ass.
You're relabelling WW2 something it was not so you don't look like a jackass for suggesting some silly, unproven, moron theory, knowing full well its never been used successfully by anyone, anywhere.