[thisisnotatest1]

Unemployment would have fallen regardless, because the April 2020 spike was 100% triggered by politicians ruling activity restrictions

As soon as the restrictions were lifted, companies started hiring again

It was never ever ever a demand problem, only of supply.

Unfortunately, people are too ideological and blind to diagnose issues correctly.

[giaour]

Your assertion assumes that demand would not have contracted in April 2020 absent government intervention, which seems suspect. Unless you believe no one would have adopted any pandemic precautions absent activity restrictions, thereby averting any demand drop in, say, the entertainment and hospitality sectors.

[thisisnotatest1]

Demand reflects consumption opportunities

People kept receiving salaries, and unemployment benefits. So financial position and income of families was always strong

There's no precautionary savings cycle.. People engaged in financial risk taking by buying houses like never before

[giaour]

> People kept receiving salaries, and unemployment benefits. So financial position and income of families was always strong

I'm confused; weren't you arguing above that unemployment concerns shouldn't have motivated government spending because the drop in demand was artificial? You can't bolster that position by saying that the demand stayed strong because of unemployment benefits and salaries that went out despite people staying home; those spending categories (PPP loans and enhanced unemployment benefits) were a government subsidy to keep demand from cratering.

[ac29]

> There's no precautionary savings cycle.. People engaged in financial risk taking

The personal savings rate tripled in early 2020: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT