Machiavelli
Well-known member
because your claim that "debt and deficit are fairly low" can only be said if you are looking at debt from a historical point, it simply isnt true of the deficit in any way. and neither of them arent where economist expected. the point you miss about Keynesian economics is you arent supposed to spend contstantly, all the time, only when the economy has a shock and needs temporary input. we had non-stop input from 2000 onwards, in the UK and globally.
My comment about debt and deficit being fairly low related to pre-2007, and I clearly stated as much (see post 308). So I'm still waiting to hear from you where I've confused debt and deficit, which is why you've accused me of talking tosh.
I agree with your point about Keynesian economics during boom-time. What you need to demonstrate -- ideally with some clear figures -- is that the input was unusually high during 1997-2007, but even that won't indicate that I'm confusing debt and deficit.