Arthur Laffer published “The Real ‘Stimulus’ Record” in today’s WSJ (August 6, 2012, A13). He pitched the numbers of GDP for 34 countries between 2007 and 2009 and found that “[nations] with the largest (government) spending spurts… saw the least growth in GDP rates before and after the stimulus.” He states that “in country after country increased government spending acted more like a depressant than a stimulant.”
For theological and philosophical reasons, how could it be otherwise? If work is the subjective act of a person that transforms an object into “wealth” by the introduction of that subjectivity into an object increasing its value, then how can the extrinsic introduction of money (stimulus) into the process increase wealth? Wealth is the transfer of the subjective contribution that is work into an object, be it spiritual or material. To inject $ that is object into the mix that we call “economy” will not increase the subjective dimension, but only increase the totality of the objective, and therefore would depress real wealth
Suggestion of an amateur: Hard study should be done on the meaning of worker and work as found in John Paul II’s “Laborem Exercens” (intro and #6 in particular). The same should be done with the meaning of wealth. At that point, we might begin to understand the real meaning of “economy,” having retrieved it from the positivistic tyranny of econometrics.