That was unnecessarily rude. What I've written is far from trolling, and it's irresponsible and uncharitable of you to call it that.
If you mean this [1], I have read the Krugman article on the stimulus' size. I'm sure Mr. Krugman's analyses are correct in the short term, although I suspect there's some question of how much you can increase GDP through government spending before other effects start working against you (like uncertainty about future taxes, decreasing ability of the country to borrow more money, etc.).
Regardless, like an ice bath is to a fever, this may treat one symptom, or even temporarily make things better, but it may also make things worse in the long run. There's nothing even remotely like a consensus that increased government spending and extra money for the poor is the correct solution to the current economic climate.
1) Future taxes were made inevitable by a) the unfunded Bush tax cuts b) the unfunded Bush Medicare part D prescription drug benefits c) the unfunded Bush war in Iraq. To spend is to tax. If you (as a government) spend, you are going to have to tax, either now or in the future, either directly or by devaluation (inflation) of the currency.
Presently, there is zero indication of any decreasing ability of the US government to borrow money.
The reason there isn't any consensus on increased stimulus spending at present is mainly because of Republican lies, and the economists like Mankiw (a Bush advisor) who spin in support of them.
As you may gather from this post, I'm somewhat pissed off at the situation, and probably vented at you because of my anger. Sorry for the overreaction.
It's OK. I sometimes get riled up about politics too.
I agree, to spend is to tax. But to spend even more is to tax even more. I'm sure additional stimulus dollars would be money far better spent than the money we have spent burning Iraq and Afghanistan to the ground, but the fact remains that additional stimulus spending must be additionally paid back some day. The chief question in my mind is whether the return on those additional dollars would be worth the price.
I think you may be overestimating the extent to which outright Republican lies, numerous though they are, are affecting consensus on this issue among economists. For example, there are many non-Keynesians out there who disagree with the assertion that high government spending can counteract a recession.
I must confess, though, I don't have my ear to the ground as well as I would like on this topic. Kind of makes you wish that there was a Cliff's notes for recent updates in the outlook of experts and academics on various important topics. My understanding is that Krugman's outlook typically differs somewhat from most economists' beliefs (as surely it would with Mankiw's arguments in the linked article), but perhaps that is not the case re: additional stimulus spending?
> And almost all of those non-Keynesians [perhaps a better term would be anti-Keynesians] are wrong.
Hmm, you seem to be claiming a either conclusive proof that Keynesianism is correct or disproof of Monetarism, new classical macroeconomics, and the Austrian school, etc. Either of these would be news to me. Am I reading you wrong?
