oes the borrowing of money guarantee lost jobs or the potentiality?

oes the borrowing of money guarantee lost jobs or the potentiality? You also seem to be arguing apples and oranges: Finland is hardly on the scale and exposure of the US. Great Britain is a socialist economy with much more incidence of planning and social mechanisms than the US and Germany has yet a another, nationally headed approach. Can you really prove that the economy would have been better off with alternatively? This seems like a straw man argument.