Never mind that I can show you recession after recession and depression after depression where the recovery was much faster than now ... and yet no spending stimulus was applied. Never mind that you can't show us a recession or depression where a spending stimulus led to a rapid recover.
We've been over this in
another thread, actually. Your example, the 1981-82 recession, saw
considerable increases in deficit spending and
spending as a percentage of GDP. Reagan raised taxes in September of 1982 (
which even the Mises institute characterized as the largest tax increase in US history) yet the economy did not slink back into recession.
In fact, just the opposite was done in the numerous cases where recovery from just as serious an economic crisis as this one were much, much faster.
There haven't been any as serious as this one since the Great Depression. But let's examine this claim. According to wikipedia, which has a handy list of US recessions, there hasn't been a loss of GDP this significant since the recession of 1945 which lasted 8 months and saw a peak unemployment of 5.2%. In your given example, the early 1980's recession, the recession wasn't nearly as bad yet lasted almost as long. The early 1990's and early 2000's recessions both lasted 8 months and declined 1.4% and .3% of GDP respectively. Let's go back before 1980 then.
The 1973-75 recession lasted 1 year and months with a 3.2% GDP decline.
The 69-70 recession lasted 11 months with a decline of .6% of the GDP.
The 60-61 recession lasted 10 months with a decline of 1.6% of the GDP.
The recession of 1958 lasted 8 months with a decline of 3.1% of the GDP.
The recession of 1953 lasted 10 months with a decline of 2.6% of the GDP.
The recession of 1949 lasted 11 months with a decline of 1.7% of the GDP.
And so on and so forth. Maybe now you'll get what I've been trying to tell you is that these recessions don't occur in an economic vacuum where only the government and its response matters on when it ends and how bad it gets. In your cute little chart you posted as evidence you ignored the simple fact that it gives precisely zero insight into what caused these recessions and how we got out of them. Simply put, you're just using these numbers to score political points without understanding any of the reasons behind them. And, frankly, I don't think you care to.
The problem is you liberals/socialists/democrats NEVER learn from history. You either ignore it, spin it or try to alter it.
There really needs to be a meter to detect broken irony meters.
Apologies to the OP for assisting in the derail.
