And this wrong, why? If you are convinced that your policy ideas are sound, and the only way to get them adopted is to win the shoutfest, why shouldn't you try to win the shoutfest?

Krugman's claim to authority must be challenged!!! Forcefully!!!

How on earth can anyone claim to know those figures so precisely? I want the people producing those figures to show proof that as of 1999, their models predicted the financial devastation that we're seeing now. No such proof that you knew it back in 1999? Then quit pretending that you have a crystal ball.

Be very, very afraid. That’s the selling-point of the sh-t sandwich of a ten-year backlog of Lefty projects and political payoffs which constitute the "Stimulus." (See $300 million for golf carts).
It’s a recession. We have them regularly….

your comment is awaiting moderation.

Paul –

The problem with posts like this — as opposed to your (increasingly pertinent) wonkish posts and the occasional more or less neutral factual posts — is that it erodes your audience. Pointlessly. And at moments like this, the only relevant audience is the Congress on both sides of the aisle.

Your role in all this is to provide the best possible economic analysis. To clarify confusions. To interpose inconvenient facts. Etc. (If you want a different role, you should ask Obama for a job.)

Every time you post on this blog, you ought to ask yourself: If Keynes found himself in my position today (or Samuelson or Solow, etc.), what would they feel compelled to say. And what would he (or they) resist saying.

To put it some entirely different way: Posts like this cheapen the brand. Why play club basketball with Galbraith when you can play in some other better league?

Affectionately,

Old friend

To answer your question: “But is there any reason based in up-to-date economic theory to believe that this trillion dollar deficit-spending bill is not, as Barro says, garbage?” Yes, there is. Take another look at the interview you link to where Barro is asked “What would you say is the best empirical evidence there?” He explains that tax cuts worked in the past and then he says “I'm the middle of a study where I am trying to estimate this overall, going back to 1913 — sort of constructing some measure of the overall effect of the tax rate at the margin, at the moment. I'm just looking at that now, actually…” Then when Baro is asked what kind of multiplier value on a dollar [of stimulus] he would expect, Barro doesn't give any numbers but says: “Well both things, but here I'm talking about the tax rate stuff. Get some measure of the effect of marginal tax rate that comes from the government — federal, state, local. And then you can see what it looks like going down or going up and how the economy responds. And then, in addition to that, the government might be spending more or less money [...]“

Maybe the interviewer didn't grill Barro hard enough but it just dosen't look like Barro has the numbers to claim that “incentive” tax cuts are x% better than “silly” tax cuts or increased government spending. Perhaps he will when he finishes his study but that's not much use right now.

Also, what's so terrible about just “improving our odds”?

Or, his political passion displaces his economic thinking. He's a brilliant economist, but the purest of political hacks. When he's writing about something that doesn't fire up his political hindbrain, he's fabulous; otherwise he's unhinged.