Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are two politicians from rival parties who have seen the results from Part I and Part II. According to Rosencrantz the evidence plainly suggests that the government expenditure crowds in investment, i.e. more government expenditure will inevitably cause higher investment. Guildenstern argues based on the same charts that government crowds out investment, i.e. the causation runs the other way.
In 750 words or less, explain the patterns in the eight graphs I have produced and attached and why they are so different from each other. Who is right, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, or consider that perhaps neither is right?