More reasons why a strong arm federal government is a joke. Are we seriously going to give an economic stimulus to Montana? Wyoming? Utah? Have you seen the unemployment rates in these states lately? Quite frankly the first two can't grow because there aren't enough people in the state.
Michigan needed an economic stimulus package for the last 4 years. California is going to need one, along with Nevada, Florida, possibly Ohio and Indiana.
But this one size fits all stuff is the most illogical evolutionary development to date.
jay,
thanks. that's one of the best non-refutations of neo-keynesianism i've ever seen. you're right that some big states have needed stimuli, but just because bush has failed to deliver doesn't mean people who actually understand economics can't. and i'm sure people in the smaller states would be interested to know that there's not enough of them for help to make a difference.
Posted by Turkana at January 15, 2008 06:22 PMBrad DeLong looked at the plans and came to a different conclusions:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/01/stimulus-packag.html
Just some alternative thoughts from another liberal economist.
Posted by Mike P at January 15, 2008 07:29 PMmike,
thanks. i've never been a fan of simple cash handouts- they can give a small boost, but i think we need something substantial. the key to delong's opinion is this:
Bear in mind that I don't yet believe that the case for a fiscal stimulus is strong--although I may change my mind in a month or two, depending on how the data flow looks.
so, that would be the real crux of the debate- how much stimulus is needed. a lot of people think we're headed for a recession, possibly a serious one. that would suggest the need for stronger stimulus. we'll see, in a couple months, but if things are as bad as some think, it sounds like delong will be rethinking what's necessary.
Posted by Turkana at January 15, 2008 07:41 PM