Did all that need tens of trillions of dollars?

Are you arguing that we should disband the military? Give up on the exploration of space?

Did all that need tens of trillions of dollars? If so, maybe not a good investment.

You guys are still arguing the question "does government actually produce anything?"

So bit, I take it your position is the government does not produce anything worthwhile?

The internet, GPS technology. How big of a breakthrough was the Apollo Guidance Computer?

Nope, the damn government has never produced anything.

(BTW, when you lay it on politicians, don't forget the deadly Greenspan combination of economic hubris and error.)

What the MR comments show is a groundswell of opinion that economics is failing us.

No, economics is failing to provide a nice neat answer that is acceptable to people. There is no policy that will magically make the problems we face no longer problems.

For example, suppose a miracle does happen and unexpectedly Obama gets the payroll tax cut substantially. Does that solve our problems? Maybe in the short run, but in about 15 years we'll really be back in deep shit since then we wont have as much money as we otherwise would have for Social Security and Medicare.

Politicians have screwed things up so far beyond belief that really they have no options with the resources they have.

You've got economists standing at an intersection, pointing every which way. Sure, you can endorse one economist and say "he has the way," but I don't see one endorsement as terribly stronger than another.

No one can lay out a case, about the here and now, or even as an iron lock on what could'a, should'a, would'a happened in 1930 had another plan been offered.

What the MR comments show is a groundswell of opinion that economics is failing us.

I encourage you to read the MR thread, Dave.

I did and it was a waste of time.

The only issue is whether any proposed action will have the result being sought. Doing something simply because it's something is foolhardy.

Without the effect of the Keynesian multiplier, stimulating the economy with federal expenditures is just spinning our wheels; it doesn't produce the desired effect.

You guys are still arguing the question "does government actually produce anything?"

What is your point? What should the government do?

Well, in a purely theoretical world where good policies can actually be implemented and not side-tracked by venal and cowardly politicians...cut the payroll tax and extend unemployment benefits. Targets the lower end of the income distribution and puts money every week or two in people's paychecks to pay bills and buy stuff.

In reality, such a plan wont be implemented, so in reality...nothing.

1) If this is "like" the Great Depression we have one and only one case for comparison. Even then the comparison is weak because our institutions and economy are vastly different.

2) Look at the economist criticism and economist self-castigation in that thread.

Not exactly a solid rock of economic science to build on here ...

Without the effect of the Keynesian multiplier, stimulating the economy with federal expenditures is just spinning our wheels; it doesn't produce the desired effect.

That's why my position, for example, is that, if you're bound and determined to have a stimulus program, the right stimulus program is extending unemployment benefits and increasing food stamps since that money is the most likely to get back into the general economy in the timeframe needed for the effect.

Steve amplifies that point by noting that if you really want to stimulate the economy a surprise tax-cut is more efficient than a capital spending program.

That was just stupid.

No...make that stooopid.

Yes, I really want people to be unemployed because I'm such a misanthrope I can't stand the idea of an economic expansion and people living better lives.

Go sit in the corner.

Greg Mankiw writes my post for me

(But certainly let's kill stupid things like the Mars mission.)