I didn’t say that helicopter money doesn’t make an economy grow. I said that I hadn’t mentioned helicopter money—that was something you introduced to the conversation. Nor did I “insist” that I am an “expert” in macroeconomics at any point. I said the idea that government spending contributes to economic growth is very basic macroeconomics, so you don’t have to be an expert to know or understand it. You don’t seem to actually be engaging with what I’m saying, and instead are making up straw men to argue against.
I find it kind of bizarre that I’m being asked to explain or justify the idea that government spending affects economic growth… This is standard Keynesian/Neo-classical stuff, aside from any more exotic varieties like Minsky or whoever else. Governments raise taxes and borrow money, then spend it on infrastructure, goods, services and transfer payments. This creates demand directly and jobs directly. These jobs then create new demand also. All the new demand stimulates the private sector, which in turn creates more jobs and growth, etc. Hey presto: demand, employment, multiplier effect, etc—economic growth results.
It sounds to me a lot like you’re committed to some kind of very right-wing brand of free-market/monetarist/etc economics. If so, you’re entitled to believe whatever you want—from Austrian economist to Marxism—but please stop pretending that I’m “lying” or “stupid” for using fairly mainstream economic ideas that you happen to disagree with.
As for Abbott—God only knows. I can’t imagine going into an interview without the correct figures on hand and then trying to stumble my way through. Presumably the same reason that tory MP felt qualified to talk about the prognosis of degenerative conditions. *shrug*