Sure there is, I'm going to spend time writing a letter, sending it and that time I'll never get back. I'd rather spend that time clipping my toenails. Not because of some nefarious reason as you are implying, but because they aren't going to claw anything back. Ever.

It isn't that there is a small chance of success, there is no chance of success. The payout in that case is trivial: 0.

Pascal's wager does not apply.

I can separate what I think will happen from what I think I should ask for ... the parallel to Pascal's Wager

Paraphrasing my grandmother,

"Ask in one hand, spit in the other and see which gets full the fastest."

Get back to us when you get a response to your asking for a claw back in the stimulus spending.

You are extremely naive at this stuff.

BTW, you didn't really make it one post without an insult.

Actually, my cynicism about what can be done with deficit reduction is what really demands that I do at least ask for it.

Why was it important for you to find division at that point, rather than say "Yes! Time to get that deficit reduction plan in place?"

Not going to happen. As soon as someone starts Obama will pull the old, "We are in a crisis, do you want to make it worse!??!?!" He'll use fear and garner support that way. The Republicans are weak and fear being made even weaker, and quite frankly they have little to no credibility in terms of deficit reduction.

You are extremely naive at this stuff. You seem to think this kind of spending can be turned on and off like a faucet in your bathroom. Sure in a theoretical world maybe....but that is rather funny considering your scorn and disdain for economists whose work is based on theory.

Do you think Republicans will come forward with a deficit reduction plan? Will they support one?

Or do you really think Bernanke should have the Fed not buy all that debt and lets see if the bond market can absorb it all....and if not take the rather nasty fall out?

I think that Bernanke's plan has about half our risk, the other half is the government debt. I think Obama's game plan, like Bernanke's, relies on a lot of things happening just right.

(The interesting opportunity here is that everyone is willing to say they are for deficit reduction. No one is crazy enough to believe trillion dollar deficits are sustainable. And so cost cutter have allies, if they choose to use them.)

You skipped that, to go off in your Krugman direction:

The tension should be between people who believe we won't have a natural recovery, and so still need true stimulus, and those who think that a natural recovery is sufficient (now or soon).

But those who argued for stimulus have also argued we'll have a very strong recovery. Brad DeLong, Paul Krugman, et. al. You sure do read things selectively.

Why was it important for you to find division at that point, rather than say "Yes! Time to get that deficit reduction plan in place?"

(in that old Mankiw/Krugman thread I put low confidence in administration projections)

So what is your beef with this post. The spending is slow, and there are places to spend it. At the very best, they are failing at implementing their own policy. Now maybe Alex is right and most economic forecasters are wrong and the spending will be timely and helpful. But I'm still skeptical.

I didn't disagree, I went beyond it. I said if it isn't fast enough, lets ask for it to stop.

For some reason that was taken strangely.

Of course, your standard tick is to make up a position for your oponent, and then be insulting about it:

Anothter ironic comment from you.

Well, I can go with it for a day, and turn it off. I don't think I've seen the same self control from you. I mean, can you go a day without going off on someone?

I agree with this, and it goes to support Ferguson and those who are arguing that fiscal policy is one reason why bond markets are reacting the way they are.

I never would have objected to a balanced post, contrasting the fiscal and monetary elements. I only called you out because in your OTB post it was all fiscal, and ... Presidentialized.

So you were disagreeing with his evidence, not his conclusion?

It is anecdotal evidence, and of the type that I'm not even sure multiple instances of it would constitute data. No data, the conclusion is seriously in doubt, IMO.

Odograph,

You seem to pick and choose about what you think other people are thinking, Steve.

Rather ironic coming from you.

I don't know why you'd make the "stimulus must be fast" argument to me.

Use the search function on this site. All along one of the objections to stimulus spending is that it doesn't get spent fast enough.

Skip google, it wont work, use the site's search function.

I've acknowledged it in the past, and talked many many times about counter-cyclical spending. Stimulus spent post-recovery is not only "not fast" it is not "counter-cyclical."

So what is your beef with this post. The spending is slow, and there are places to spend it. At the very best, they are failing at implementing their own policy. Now maybe Alex is right and most economic forecasters are wrong and the spending will be timely and helpful. But I'm still skeptical.

Of course, your standard tick is to make up a position for your oponent, and then be insulting about it:

Anothter ironic comment from you.

From Felix Salmon,

This is reasonable enough: after having hit the zero bound, there’s not much which can be said about monetary policy, and fiscal policy is going to be the main driver of America’s standing in the international financial markets going forwards.

This doesn't square with your position that it is primarily the Fed/Monetary policy angle (since your memory appears worse than mine, I'll point out you linked approvingly to a seekingalpha article on this and then claimed that that article was exactly what bond market participants were thinking). In fact, it fits in nicely with the argument made by Niall Ferguson.

By the way, let me spell out what Salmon is saying: that Fed policy is less of a factor than Fiscal policy. That it isn't necessarily just quantitative easing that is the issue with bond markets, but also the fiscal spending. In fact, so much so, that it is reasonable for the Fed Chairmen to spend very little time talking about Monetary policy.

Salmon continues,

What’s more, for the past couple of years the Fed has been working hand-in-glove with Treasury: the distinction between fiscal and monetary policy, and the independence of the central bank, have gone by the wayside (quite properly, I might add, contra Angela Merkel) in a time of crisis.

I agree with this, and it goes to support Ferguson and those who are arguing that fiscal policy is one reason why bond markets are reacting the way they are.

And yes, when it came to GM, Salmon was just spouting Administration talking points. Was he presidentializing?

I think some did and some didn't. I can remember some of those talking about the danger of 10-year Japanese style scenarios. Oh, here is Krugman:

Krugman argued that the rebound in terms of employment would be stronger than in previous recessions. In fact, he chastised Greg Mankiw for being skeptical. Mankiw offered a wager, and Krugman was curiously silent, then he wrote either an op-ed or blog post where he pretty much conceded that the argument for a strong recovery was less than what he initially argued.

I believe your quote for Krugman comes after that concession.

If you are going to call my memory selective, get your ducks in a row.

Oh and yes, your quote comes after Krugman's concession. I posted on it here. Oh and looky, you commented in that thread. Maybe we'll have to go with a bad memory on your part.

I don't know why you'd make the "stimulus must be fast" argument to me. I've acknowledged it in the past, and talked many many times about counter-cyclical spending. Stimulus spent post-recovery is not only "not fast" it is not "counter-cyclical."

Of course, your standard tick is to make up a position for your oponent, and then be insulting about it:

Do you understand now, or must I use smaller words?

Geez Louise, yesterday you called Felix Salmon a "partisan hack" but I see him making much less emotional, and more reasoned analysis.

Here he is on the dangers of mixing fiscal and monetary policy at the Fed.

But those who argued for stimulus have also argued we'll have a very strong recovery. Brad DeLong, Paul Krugman, et. al. You sure do read things selectively.

I think some did and some didn't. I can remember some of those talking about the danger of 10-year Japanese style scenarios. Oh, here is Krugman:

The United States risks a Japan-style lost decade of growth if it does not take aggressive action to stimulate its economy and clean up its banking system, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said on Monday.

That was on May 11, 2009.

If you are going to call my memory selective, get your ducks in a row.

I find this a weak argument considering that the unemployment rate is so high. We are on trajectory as if there were no spending. I'm just finding it hard to reconcile the nebulous claim with actual data.

So you were disagreeing with his evidence, not his conclusion?

I just think it's perverse, if in our democracy, people who oppose spending find themselves in the political position to demand it "harder and faster."

I wish it could be undone, but the reality is it wont.

But you are ignoring my point, that one of the main issues with stimulus spending is that it is done fast, if it is to work at all. We aren't seeing that fast spending, yet. Unless Alex is right and something like 70+% of economic forecasters are wrong, we aren't going to see it spent when it should be spent. And this, was one of the arguments against the stimulus spending.

Do you understand now, or must I use smaller words?

Michael,

Alex is saying that the availability of stimulus money is spurring economic activity, even though the money hasn't been spent. Your counter-argument is that, since the money will be spent after the activity is done, the money played no part in it.

I find this a weak argument considering that the unemployment rate is so high. We are on trajectory as if there were no spending. I'm just finding it hard to reconcile the nebulous claim with actual data.

Odograph again,

The tension should be between people who believe we won't have a natural recovery, and so still need true stimulus, and those who think that a natural recovery is sufficient (now or soon).

But those who argued for stimulus have also argued we'll have a very strong recovery. Brad DeLong, Paul Krugman, et. al. You sure do read things selectively.

Now there certainly may be political difficulties, but I'd think any monies truly unspent would be ripe for such a plan.

The tension should be between people who believe we won't have a natural recovery, and so still need true stimulus, and those who think that a natural recovery is sufficient (now or soon).

(The interesting opportunity here is that everyone is willing to say they are for deficit reduction. No one is crazy enough to believe trillion dollar deficits are sustainable. And so cost cutter have allies, if they choose to use them.)

Right, and if the consensus on the recession ending is right (3rd Quarter this year) I'm thinking way too late for helping to end the recession.

Alex is saying that the availability of stimulus money is spurring economic activity, even though the money hasn't been spent. Your counter-argument is that, since the money will be spent after the activity is done, the money played no part in it.

When I want to buy something, having the money available spurs me to make the purchase, in which case the availability of the money was the stimulus, not the physical spending of it.

Since the end of the recession is when when things stop getting worse, I don't see why the availability of money activating projects that necessitate the creation of jobs and goods shouldn't be considered a factor in the growth of the economy, just because the checks hadn't been cashed at that point. If someone who was unemployed gets hired, technically their unemployment ends on their first day or work, not when they get their first pay check, and their economic decisions will reflect that.