[Previous entry: "This is remaining open to scrutiny?"] [Next entry: "Who Owns It?"]

08/06/2010: "Krugman at odds with reality"

In the editorial, Experts at odds with Wall's call on stimulus cuts (SP Aug 4), the writers appeal to the authority of two columnists to criticize Brad Wall's suggestions.

Despite winning a Nobel, the economics promoted by Paul Krugman in his New York Times columns has been wrong more often than it has been right. He has repeatedly been shown to have made errors or outright distortions in his math, in his terminology, in his logic, and in his history, and has fabricated quotations to back up his claims. It is easier to find wrong predictions from him than right ones.

While E.J. Dionne has not made such an ignoble name for himself, he too appears to be working on it, with problematic articles being frequently deconstructed. Using the columns of either of these public figures as authoritative on economics due to their credentials is suspect at best.

In contrast to the promoted theories, multiple researchers have reviewed the historical data and demonstrated that government stimulus spending has done little good for economies at best, and more often considerable harm. Each additional dollar of government spending has resulted in much less than a dollar of economic benefit rather than more. On the other hand, broad based tax cuts have been consistently effective at increasing economic growth. This research comes from a number of independent sources, including Harvard University, Stanford University, University of London, University of Chicago, Indiana University, and the International Monetary Fund. Even Christina Romer, who is a Professor of Economics at Berkeley and was chief economic advisor to President Obama, has written two papers showing that tax cuts help economies.

So, if economic recovery is what Wall is after, the lessons of history itself would direct him to stop any and all stimulus spending and to cut taxes for all.