Like the other commented who replied to your post, I'm left with the feeling you didn't read the article (or at least, not very carefully). For instance, you wr

Like the other commented who replied to your post, I'm left with the feeling you didn't read the article (or at least, not very carefully). For instance, you write: >If you drop hundreds of billions of dollars paying for government workers that the government cannot afford, you are not simulating anything [...] Likewise, if you cut taxes for the rich, and they continue to spend their money in the same way, you are also not doing anything except to run up the debt. That is the exact point made in the article: that both the Keynesian (Dem) and Chicagoan (Rep) approaches are not going to help in creating jobs. In addition, you claim the article >takes whatever the current problem is and announces that it is insolvable The article closes with noting "no economic theory offers [unemployed Americans] easy salvation" (which is certainly true) and suggests that having a more highly-skilled workforce would help the problem. Do you disagree with this point? Wouldn't it be easier to employ liberal arts majors if they developed a useful skill? I'm a grad student in Economics, and usually I think the NY Times does an abysmal job reporting on economic issues, but this article did a decent job.