I am inclined generally to agree with your view. In my very first post on the subject I explained my ideology to be in accordance with your view. I am not unaware of the work done by Amity Shoels on the 1930s depression. Hers is not the only voice on this issue however. I want to agree with her because it conforms to my ideology, but that ain't the way I get to what I believe. I do not believe in working backwards from my ideology. I am agnostic because I have not seen definitive proof.
In the issue at hand, we don't even know half facts, how can you be so sure?
I have a little humility before making blanket pronouncements. For example, our side is fond of saying that tax cuts advance prosperity. That is a government intervention that we think works. You agree? Do you want to amend the blanket assertion that interventions never work?
I have a little humility before making blanket pronouncements. For example, our side is fond of saying that tax cuts advance prosperity. That is a government intervention that we think works. You agree? Do you want to amend the blanket assertion that interventions never work? I suppose you could refer to a tax cut as an intervention. I see it as a decrease in government intervention. That is to say, a tax cut is government getting out of the way, lightening the load, loosening its grip, etc., whereas the usual meaning of "intervention" is the opposite: Government tightening its grip, centralizing decisions, etc..