A Washington economist who works for a think tank believes that too much reliance on government intervention through fiscal policy is liazardous to our nation's future economic health. "We've seen the automatic stabilizers work in the past," she contends. "Why not let things take their course? Government spending is high enough right now to keep the economy functioning well without so much steering on our part. It may well do better without us." Which of the following probably BEST describes the way today's economists would view her argument in this scenario? It's an approach that makes sense when things are generally functioning well, but economic stabilizers have limited impact. O It not only makes good sense, but is actually reflective of current fiscal policy. Ruth's view is dangerously naive considering that the so-called economic stabilizers work well only with government intervention. O Ruth's advocated approach makes sense under extreme circumstances, but not under normal economic conditions