Well, cialis a select gathering of “mainstream” (say, buy cialis when did that become a synonym for “unreliable”?) economists agree that the best way to get out of our economic malaise is to have the government spend borrowed money, buy cialis as reported in the Nude York Times (“All the liberal bias that’s fit to print!”):
Frightened by the recession and the credit crisis that produced it, the nation’s mainstream economists are embracing public spending to repair the damage — even those who have long resisted a significant government role in a market system.
Hundreds of economists who gathered here for the annual meeting of the American Economic Association seemed to acknowledge that a profound shift had occurred.
At their last annual meeting, ideas about using public spending as a way to get out of a recession or about government taking a role to enhance a market system were relegated to progressives. The mainstream was skeptical or downright hostile to such suggestions. This time, virtually everyone voiced their support, returning to a way of thinking that had gone out of fashion in the 1970s.
“The new enthusiasm for fiscal stimulus, and particularly government spending, represents a huge evolution in mainstream thinking,” said Janet Yellen, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. She added that the shift was likely to last for as long as the profession is dominated by men and women living through this downturn.
Well, this should be comforting for the “borrow and spend” Democrats now poised to take over in Washington. Only problem? These economist geniuses don’t in fact know what the fuck they’re talking about by their own admission:
But there is not much agreement yet on what type of spending would produce the best results, or what mix of spending and tax cuts.
“We have spent so many years thinking that discretionary fiscal policy was a bad idea, that we have not figured out the right things to do to cure a recession that is scaring all of us,” said Alan J. Auerbach, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, referring to the mix of public spending and tax cuts known as fiscal policy.
The few sessions that dealt with fiscal policy were packed with economists, mostly from academia. Nearly all argued that public spending can be more effective than tax cuts in getting out of a bad recession. Still, they said the present crisis required, as a tonic, a mix of the two, and they debated what that mix should be, just as President-elect Obama’s transition team is now doing.
Their proposals were all over the lot. But at the formal sessions and in more than a dozen interviews, many said that once the recession ended, the nation should not go back to the system that held sway from Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 to the present crisis. It was one in which taxes, regulation and public spending were minimized.
“Mostly academics,” huh? Well, that’s reassuring in that these are the very people who had no idea of what was going on previously and have horrifyingly realized this. We wouldn’t want our theoretical ideas to be sullied by anyone with practical experience in, say, business or finance, now would we?
And what was this shindig anyway, a get-together of “PhD’s for Socialist Action”? So, they’re against reducing taxes, regulations and public spending, huh? It’s pretty clear what the alternative to that is, and why would anybody in his right mind think that higher taxes and more public spending would have prevented the present crisis? And as for regulation, a big chunk of the problem came from the “subprime” debacle that was cooked up by idiots in Washington and imposed by their asinine regulations, you cretins.
So, we also think that “public spending can be more effective than tax cuts in getting out of a bad recession,” do they? And what would conceivably think that a government program was a better way to spend money than to leave it in the hands of people who actually work for a living? We’re already beginning to see the vast appetite for borrowing on the part of many governments drive up the cost of borrowing from businesses (remember, they’re the people who actually make real jobs). And remember stuff like inflation and a collapse of the dollar? Bad for business (and inevitable given the huge amounts set to be borrowed). Anyone paying attention knows that the same sorts of policies under Roosevelt in the 1930s did nothing to alleviate unemployment, and in fact delayed recovery.
As anyone who has ever watched Rescue 911 knows, most people panic in a crisis. Seems that even people with the sort of “first-rate temperament” that comes from getting a doctorate from one of the right kind of schools are >no less subject to this human failing.