What is the ultimate source of demand? What does the government say it is?
That sir, is wrong. There is no such thing as "pro growth" policies. There is only absence (or lack) of gevernment interference.
Wouldn't a policy of less government interference be a pro growth policy?
That is a silly statement. The government and the Fed want growth so they can continue to borrow.
Really? How much money have they borrowed in the last 6 or 7 years of near zero growth, compared to the previous years where there was growth?
Why has the Fed wrongly claimed for decades that economic growth and wage increases are the cause of inflation and that inflation is the number one enemy of the economy?
That is not a refutation of my assertion.
Wouldn't a policy of less government interference be a pro growth policy?
Should we be thankful when our assailant promises to hurt us less? Does the act of cessation of harm on the part of the assailant mean the assailant now wants our wellbeing?
How much money have they borrowed in the last 6 or 7 years of near zero growth, compared to the previous years where there was growth?
Define growth! If you mean REAL growth, i.e. an increase in production / spending that is NOT funded by deficit spending - we haven't "grown" in a very long time. If you mean what the government says is growth at any on specific point in time, then we already have a problem with definitions.
But to answer your question, far more than they should have, but we have been living on deficits for over 30 years!
Why has the Fed wrongly claimed for decades that economic growth and wage increases are the cause of inflation and that inflation is the number one enemy of the economy?
Because the Fed had to have a scapegoat for it's own policies! It is the incessant borrowing over the last 30 years that have resulted in MORE money in the system, the very definition of monetary inflation.
So, do you care to finally defend your assertion that my statement "Where there is growth in demand there is an increase in employment." is wrong?