Even if their faulty assumption was true, wouldn't that just be a Keynesian approach to solving a recession? I though Keynes approach was that the government should step in a spend more to prevent a recession, essentially equalling what is lost in the free market.
Fully admit could be totally wrong on this. Just curious.
Government spending is how a Keynesian combats a recession. For perspective, though, look at this chart of government spending as a % of GDP. It has never gotten even close to 85% of GDP (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8fX). Chamath claimed it was 85% of GDP growth, which is a different calculation, but looking at [this data](https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/2024-10/gdp3q24-adv....) from the past couple of years you can see that the claim is still incorrect.
Are we in a recession? I don't think so. There was (still is) a possibility of a recession, due to elevated interest rates, but the way fiscal policy works, through Congress's appropriations, it is hopelessly lagging behind monetary policy (the Fed).
Even if their faulty assumption was true, wouldn't that just be a Keynesian approach to solving a recession? I though Keynes approach was that the government should step in a spend more to prevent a recession, essentially equalling what is lost in the free market.
Fully admit could be totally wrong on this. Just curious.