So according to his own arguments (which I don't accept btw @), he has just proven that increasing government spending does no damage to the economy? So we can

So according to his own arguments (which I don't accept btw @), he has just proven that increasing government spending does no damage to the economy? So we can now choose to spend more or less with no whining about the economy? In that case, I choose more hospitals, libraries, healthcare and a social security net. @ In any case, I think this is far too simplified due to: a) Lack of a control group/proper statistical analysis/elimination of other factors. b) No consideration of what that money is spent upon/ common factors / types of spending. His own graph shows massive variation. That is what he should be investigating. What actually makes the variation shown in the graph? I suspect it's down to types of spending. To illustrate my own bias, I'm happy to believe that giving money to the poor boosts the economy. Giving it to bankers, maybe less so. c) No consideration of other benefits of spending. At the end, he says the only thing you have to show for spending is debt. If you spend it on infrastructure, you have roads, hospitals, etc, that you wouldn't have otherwise.