Thank you Stratocaster, for your unrequired cites.
They are, as expected, inadequate.
The Cato institute, nonpartisan? Really?
Have you any bridges I may purchase? 
Squink, stop digging the hole you’re standing in. I don’t care if they’re partisan or not; I don’t have a firm opinion on the topic at all.
The fact is that there are differing opinions on the New Deal’s effectiveness, some of it, I’m sure, delineated by partisan boundaries, some of it reasonably objective. You’re embarrassing yourself by continuing the line of thought that someone needs cites that bears shit in the woods or whatever it was we were talking about. Please, I feel bad for you.
I take from your response that you understand why appealing to other opinions instead of the content of that being argued about is stupid. And I also see that you understand why making statements of fact which one is unwilling to defend by couching them as opinion is disingenuous.
But you, apparently, simply don’t see what that has to do with your posts in this thread. I rather thought it would be clear.
The Cato Institute? Well, non-partisan in the sense that nobody much cares what they think, dedicated as they are to puppy evisceration and the destruction of Carthage. Hey, that’s my opinion, I don’t have to prove nothin’ to you guys!!
In fairness, though I disagree with you on the potential effect of the stimulus and on its necessity, I do agree with you on this. I think it’s ludicrous that my fellow liberals are pretending that there are no economists, or people who know something about the soft science of economy, who believe the stimulus is foolhardy and dangerous. I happen - to the best of my knowledge and research - to believe that those people are mistaken, but to pretend that they do not exist is disingenous, at best.
[/end fairness]
Thanks. Seemed inarguable to me, so it’s nice to see this acknowledged by someone.
Nope, those are issues of fact. So you continue to make yourself look ridiculous (and you continue to conflate debate points–you’re at least consistent in your inconsistency).
Let’s concede for argument’s sake that they are partisan. We’ll ignore the fact that they excoriated Bush “on a wide variety of issues, including the Iraq war, civil liberties, education, health care, agriculture, energy policy, and excessive government spending.” If anything, that strengthens the point that there are opposing views, that there is not anything like a uniform, settled opinion on this. Unless you still cling to the notion that my argument was based on the strength of their argument (or of Friedman’s, or Schwartz’s, or Romer’s), in which case I’ll have to conclude that you’re being willfully obtuse at this point.
Here, try on this analogy for size. If someone suggests that there is a unified, uncontested consensus on political positions, and cites the DNC as evidence, one might dispute that notion. Not the positions, mind you. The notion that there is a consensus. If asked for proof for such a ridiculous contention, one might offer the RNC talking points. If your reaction to such a counter is, “But they’re partisan poopyheads! Not good enough,” then you are really, really bad at this. (And really, really good at missing the point.)
This isn’t tough. I am pained at the dancing around and posturing and non sequiturs going on in this thread. I wish I could give you guys a big hug, I feel so bad for you. 
Yes, there are some very clear examples of such in this thread. You need to look a little harder. Keep tryin’, chum.
But how many, Frank? Strato offers us the conclusion that “many” economists believe that, “many” being the operative word and being without clear, concise definition. If you believe that there are ten academically credentialed economists who believe that (which I can hardly doubt) and ten is “many”, well, there you have it.
But it is couched in language to suggest that it is a widely held opinion, or even that is the majority opinion. This I very much doubt, if the question is limited to the potential efficacy of Keynesian programs, as Keynesian economics is orthodox economics, despite advocacy by wild-eyed and raving extremists like Paul Krugman.
If Strato’s only contribution is to forcefully insist the obvious, its not worth the wear and tear on the hamsters.
Here’s a few hundred for ya. Have a ball.
I never interpreted his statements that way. I interpreted them to mean that there is a strong minority opinion among economists that the stimulus is a mistake, a point which I feel is inarguable. (Put two economists into a room, and you get three opinions.)
I think it’s very clear what Stratocaster’s opinion is, and I think that’s what you’re responding to by taking an easy shot at his not citing a point which frankly doesn’t need citing. Of course ecomomists who support his view could be biased; it would be just as fair a shot for him to say that economists who support our view could be biased. Economism is not a hard science, like g----l w-----g. We’ll see who’s right. I hope it’s us.
Economist. Economist. Economist. Economist. That word is starting to look really funny.
You closed your tag Frank, but you never started it.
No one here is pretending there are no such economists, we simply feel that it is important to some detail on who these people are. Once we have names, we can look at them, their arguments, their associates, and decide whether they are utter asshats or not. Stratocaster’s uncheckable claim that “many, many respected economists who disagree that the New Deal…” has all the validity Oregon Petition on global warming. Only when checks are made, can validity be determined, and in this case the possibility of making such checks depends on exactly who Stratocaster considers a respected economist. For all you, or anyone else could know, he was talking about Rush Limbaugh and Woody Woodpecker. Now, after considerable prying, we know he means the Boys at Cato, and the friends of Rupert Murdoch.
IMHO, both are charming groups of charlatans, and Stratocaster is an asshole for trying to hide the identity of his big authority figures.
Excuse me? Did he not say “many, many economists”? Does that not imply a very large number to you? Certainly does imply it to me, but admittedly it is couched in deniable language, lacking definition. So I ask for definition, and get the ol’ run around.
I’m not talking about saying that there aren’t some academic economic disagreement, of course there is. So what? Just as you say, two economists, three opinions.
He is entirely free to post a bald opinion, this is the Pit, not GD. Or he can claim to make a substantiated argument, with facts supporting. But not both at the same time.
(Upon preview, better said by Squink. Darn!)
This is again, as far as I can tell, a cheap shot. I googled eight names at random from his cite above, and they are all economists. That is a far cry from the Oregon Petition.
I don’t get this; I really don’t. It is a fact that there are economists who believe that we are wrong. This does not mean that that arguments against the stimulus should be cast aside as biased or from charlatans, any more than our arguments against Bush’s tax cuts should have been so treated. They should be fairly argued against.
Frank, give it up. Apparently several hundred economists is not enough evidence to show that there is a dissenting opinion–again, not that they’re correct, merely that there is disagreement among legitimate economists. And elucidator apparently is carrying on his proud tradition of not even reading the posts he objects to, since he seems to be unaware of my last post and thinks a coffee klatch makes up the entire opposition. This is a riot, honestly.
Perhaps they are all economists, but you could not know that until he gave a cite, could you?
Did you take a stupid pill today Frank, or were you just born that way?
Well, yes, I could, because I had enough common sense and knowledge to know that there are perfectly legitimate economists who object to our plan.
And people wonder why I vote Democratic, but don’t hang around with Democrats.
I still wonder. IME, I’d say your average Republican is far more … intractable to say the least.
(No cite. It’s the Pit. Bite me.)
You’re sane, but anti-social? Love humanity, can’t stand people? I totally relate.
If the question is “Are there any, repeat, any legitimate economists who disagree with the plan?”, the answer simply has to be yes. Of course. *Tres *duh!
But when the statement becomes “many, many economists”, well, that alters the landscape some. Clearly, the intent to is portray the dissenting camp as being substantial rather than marginal. And that’s fine too, so long as you can back it up.
Called on it, we get a list of academic economists (presumably academics, much is made of collegial affiliations) compiled by the Cato folks, who we both know are dedicated libertarians. One can be forgiven for a modicum of polite suspicion, though, for the most part, I think they play pretty straight.
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AEA/table_members.htm
The American Economist Association listed about 22,000 member as of 2007. I’m supposed to be floored by something less than 300 compiled by a foundation dedicated to a particular economic philosophy? An economic philosophy directly antagonistic to the kind of economics that informs the plan?
Are you? Would you have been remotely surprised, much less impressed, to hear that the Cato Inst. can name <300 economists who think the plan is off base? And does this qualify, in your estimation, for the label “many, many economists”?
Well that’s very nice for you Frank. Did your personal list and the one you dug up from Stratocaster’s belated cite match in any detail?
Does his definition of legitimate economist coincide with your own?
Let us know so we can choose to believe either Frank or Stratocaster instead of making up our own minds for ourselves.
No, screw it and screw you too. I’ll ask my own questions, and make up my own mind.
If that disturbs your sense of fair play, you are free to whine about it to your heart’s content.