[Real Cynic No More]

This article is partially correct. The trick is in what you stimulate. If you line contributors pockets with cash, sending money to so-called green projects that employ few people, and reward the unemployed for not working, that is not “stimulus”. If you put the money towards large long-lasting public infrastructure projects that employ significant numbers of people, not only during their construction, but in their operation and maintenance, that is stimulus. This would include transportation and energy transport systems. Taking coal and other energy systems away are anti-stimulus projects.

[palmer]

Energy transport is private. The only thing the government can do (and does regularly) is get in the way.

[1rudeboy]

Problem is, you are missing the "breaking glass" part. If the government takes money from its citizens and then "invests" it in an infrastructure project, the return on the investment sucks right out of the gate because of fraud, abuse, waste, and whatnot.

I will agree that spending on roads is a legitimate governmental function.

[9YearLurker]

Your big construction ‘stimulus’ only works if there’s a profound lack of basic government services, such as decent roads and bridges.

Otherwise, all you are doing is taking money away from the private sector, fancying up some government utilities, and lining the pockets of noncompetitive labor unions.

[Ouderkirk]

all of this is meaningless as long as the price of energy remains high for retail consumers.

High energy costs hurt the bottom, who need to spend most of their income to survive. Lower energy prices stimulates the economy because of the effect of a pay raise, by lowering costs for food, fuel, heat, lights, and lower prices on other energy intensive products like electronics.

So, all the stimulus in the world will not fix the economy...lower energy prices will.