I presume that views are either "ideology talking points" or "universally agreed-upon facts," right? Case closed! I have read intro econ textbooks. The notion

I presume that views are either "ideology talking points" or "universally agreed-upon facts," right? Case closed! I have read intro econ textbooks. The notion that taking a dollar from one party and giving it to another party creates wealth is absurd. At best, you can argue that it will debase the currency (if not, why doesn't it work with any commodity? You can say that if we confiscate X amount of wealth, and give it away, it turns into 2X amount of wealth. But if the wealth is denominated in, e.g., gold, or houses, or publishing rights, it doesn't have similar fecundity.) Thank you for the comic. It ably makes your point. However, we're talking about a social science, which is at least partially influenced by the need for grants, public approval, speaking engagements, etc. You can't just put the Depression in a supercolider and run tests on it. Because of this, it's more analogous to other ideological popularity contests, like English Lit and Scientology. People have spent decades studying both of those, but it hasn't made them great writers or superhumans. Similarly, economists who study lots of Keynesian economics don't end up making awesomely profitable global macro trades--even Keynes was smart enough to invest based on something other than his own philosophy. Hoover's spending was unprecedented. It was hardly "nothing". Another timeline to consider: Dawn of time-Present: Governments attempt to control currency, typically lead to inflationary bubbles, followed by busts. 1936: This is somehow declared a Good Thing.