…but is interesting anyway. The chart shows NGDP for the 51 months following the trough in April 1933 and following the trough in June 2009.
It may not be a fair comparison because the spending fall in the Great Depression was much bigger than during the Great Recession. So one could think that ‘more slack’ would prompt a faster recovery (along the lines of Friedman´s plucking model).
But the size of the spending gap, or amount of slack, may have little to do with the character of the recovery. Just like the 1929-33 downturn was much more severe because monetary policy was magnitudes tighter than in 2008-09, the recovery was much more robust in 1933-37 because monetary policy was magnitudes more expansionary than in 2009-13. No, the Liquidity Trap argument doesn´t work because rates were extremely low in both instances.