Yes. You got it EXACTLY wrong - you got the direct exactly wrong. I don't subscribe to the school that -1 is the same as 1. It's not. It's the opposite. And the opposite matters. You are dead wrong. You are charlatan for pretending to know macro economics. You are a child for still insisting that you got that answer right. And no, calling it chimerica does not make you look smarter.
You are assuming your view is right. I don't think it is. As the article mentions it argues against other economists. What makes you think you are right.
How about Krugman then? (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/opinion/15krugman.html) Look - economists disagree on what to do about it, not why it happen. Your world view seems to consist of the fact that everyone has opinions and thus you can just make things up because they are opinions. It's sad, really.
No. It's not. You are making the same mistake as our moderator: +1 does not equal to -1. Future consumption is not the same as present consumption, which is not the same as past consumption. Order matters - otherwise yesterday is the same as tomorrow.