Right…you used an extreme exaggeration in a sort of metonymic way so that your lackluster argument might have a more striking impact where it otherwise wouldn’t. As I said…borderline trolling.
Nice attempt at a reframe and burden shift, but it was you who implied that government intervention is desirable and necessary, offering no other evidence than the fact that economic downturns have not rebounded in a day. (which, again, I would assume no one would interpret that you meant literally 24 hours, but it’s interesting that you would use such an embellishment, as it allows you deniability if anyone were to actually present a case of recovery in a “short time”…because of course, you didn’t actually define “short time”…you simply said “one day”. This of course allows you to confidently make a blanket statement about every economic downturn in the history of civilization without fear of being proven wrong.)
So, for one thing, making such an embellished blanket statement does nothing to support your case. Clayton makes the argument that resources do have alternative uses, and your response is a sarcastic comment meant to imply that if he were correct, downturns would rebound more quickly…as if the intervention you claim is so necessary weren’t constantly taking place. My comment was meant point out the possibility that the interventions distort the market process—which is kind of what they do, by design and definition—and therefore a blanket statement which includes downturns where such manipulations took place is not an appropriate way to make such claims. In other words, you can’t claim intervention is necessary by pointing to downturns and saying “look, they lasted longer than a ‘short time’”…when the market-distorting intervention you’re advocating was taking place during said downturns. If anything, that refutes your case that the intervention is desirable. Your response to this is that there is some burden of proof on me to demonstrate that the intervention retarded the recovery.
For one thing, this has been done countless times. The Keynesian argument for intervention, has been debunked, countless times. But even if it hadn’t, that isn’t even relevant for that argument. You essentially claimed intervention was necessary because “every economic downturn lasted longer than a day”…without even accounting for the fact that the vast majority of those (if not virtually every one) involved the intervention you’re claiming is necessary.
I call attention to your fallacy and you commit yet another one and attempt to reframe the discussion and shift the burden of proof. It is you who is making the argument for intervention. It is you who is arguing for something. Therefore it is you who is shouldered with the burden of proof…which of course you have not provided. You simply beg the question.
But what’s more, if you actually wished to go the other route (as you have done here) and claim that a free-er market doesn’t recover as well as one that is intervened and manipulated by some central authority, you’d have to speak to specific examples of lesser intervention and compare them to other instances where government intervention was heavily involved and recovery decidedly occurred faster…preferably ones in which a direct causal relationship between the intervention and the intended economic outcome can be shown. (Of course, this comparison has already been done, many, many times (including those listed above) and the evidence shows exactly the opposite of the claim you are making)
So, if anyone needs to provide evidence, it is the one who is making an argument for intervention. (I.e., you.)