Although you could condemn an economic policy if it consistently fails when it's consistently followed as a coherent policy, I suppose that is actually the case here.
There is nothing to say this one way or the other, precisely because we live in a world where national leaders
do not sit down with a sixty year old textbook and ask, "What singular, academic theory should I personally use to direct every single dollar that this government spends for every day of my term in office?" This is exactly the kind of argument I've been saying from the start that I don't want in my thread, because it goes nowhere.
You are not going to convince mainiac of anything, he is not going to convince you of anything. Sitting here as OP, I can say that of the two of you, he is the one making the coherent argument, in that he acknowledges how little any of this talk has to do with how nations are actually run. My thread about the current American elections is not an open microphone for you to launch your case against a nebulous (and might I add erroneous) dimensionless impression of an economic theory, and I'm getting a little tired of having to remind everyone of that.
You know what policy positions you can argue about? The ones people running for office have actually described. Not what you
believe they have acted on, what they have actually described, and what (at least in the case of those who have held an office) have actually implemented themselves. In concrete terms.