I’ve read all sorts of claims that there’s a consensus among economists on the need for the financial stimulus package that’s making it’s way through the Congress. That’s either a misunderstanding, disinformation, or a bald-faced lie. There is no consensus:
WASHINGTON — The compromise economic stimulus plan agreed to by negotiators from the House of Representatives and the Senate is short on incentives to get consumers spending again and long on social goals that won’t stimulate economic activity, according to a range of respected economists.
“I think (doing) nothing would have been better,” said Ed Yardeni, an investment analyst who’s usually an optimist, in an interview with McClatchy. He argued that the plan fails to provide the right incentives to spur spending.
“It’s unfocused. That is my problem. It is a lot of money for a lot of nickel-and- dime programs. I would have rather had a lot of money for (promoting purchase of) housing and autos . . . . Most of this plan is really, I think, aimed at stabilizing the situation and helping people get through the recession, rather than getting us out of the recession. They are actually providing less short-term stimulus by cutting back, from what I understand, some of the tax credits.”
I think you could find a lot of economists who believe in the benefits of a perfect stimulus package. As I’ve said before here, a perfect stimulus package is like a perfect gas—it doesn’t exist in nature. Frankly, I doubt you could even find a majority who favor the stimulus package that’s actually under consideration.
But this post isn’t about the case for or against a financial stimulus package. Economists differ. You can produce a Nobel Prize-winning economist who favors the stimulus package. You can produce a Nobel Prize-winning economist who opposes it.
There is no consensus.
Update
More on the lack of consensus from Menzie Chinn of Econbrowser.
Not to be persnickety, but I think more correctly “ideal” gas.
(Not to be confused with “gas, gas gas,” I’m Jumpin’ Jack Flash, its a…)
I believe I’m correct in saying that a teeter totter of uniform density placed perfectly 50/50 on a frictionless fulcrum would fall decidedly to the left, if the universe of economists were placed on said teeter totter, with the stimulus doubting economists positioned on the left….
And that is, with no corrections for the reduced density of the large amounts, ideal or not, of hot air contained in Professor Krugman’s lungs…….
Both are correct. “Ideal gas” and “perfect gas” are used interchangeably. I think that perfect gas is the older term.
“Both are correct. “Ideal gas†and “perfect gas†are used interchangeably.”
Just a physical chemist’s snark………..lame as it might be.
They could in part be referring to the government groups of economists, like the CBO and Council of Economic Advisors , but overall, nobody has any idea what a consensus exists in terms of economists. Time for a poll!
Better yet, “there is no economics.”