GMU economist, Russ Roberts, has some thoughts to share on the idea of "economic stimulus" for the economy.

The audio version aired on NPR and both the audio and written versions can be heard/seen at NPR's website . The audio version is a little over 3 minutes long.

Roberts:

My online dictionary defines stimulus as something that "rouses or incites to activity." Sounds like the perfect prescription for an ailing economy.

Yes, I know, this whole angle has gotten a lot of play. But I think it's worth repeating as many times as it takes.

And a hearty hat tip to Roderick Long for continuing to point it out via an article by Tom Woods:

The Case for Realism

A short post which takes (yet another) critical look at the hiring of William Kristol at the NY Times. Links to great Salon piece that rebuts the NY Times' "balance of views" defense for hiring Kristol. The article explains that none of the NYT columnists are very different from Kristol....they only vary in temerity and targets for US assertion.

A choice quote:

Yuck. What a terrible debate. Not really my style. Thanks, MSNBC. NOT.

Typical Russert "toughness": Grill'em with bad questions and demand a straight answer. What a moron.

Ezra Klein agrees :

While all economists have an ideological bias...whether slight or pronounced, most whose blogs I read or come across tend to lack an overt partisan bias that overshadows their writing.

Ethanol is Milking Us Dry

Have you noticed how the price of milk has shot up in the past year? A big chunk of the blame lies with Congress and the ethanol program.

Yep. Deja-Vu

I found this interesting:

Oh wait...he was. :(

My, my, how he speaks differently when he isn't at the Fed .

Click ahead to about 3:50 for a passage and then to about 6:00. If you stand his rambling, double speaking, Greenspan-ese, start earlier.

Hat tip to Kling at EconLog :

The Boston Globe reports :

Mayor Thomas M. Menino embarked on a highly public campaign yesterday to block CVS Corp. and other retailers from opening medical clinics inside their stores, an effort that exposed a rift between Menino and the state's public health commissioner, a longtime ally.

As I posted a few months ago (without generating much attention...*shrug*), Barack Obama's key economic adviser is Austin Goolsbee, a preeminent Behavioral Economist . Obama seems to have taken well to his approach and it shows in his policy ideas...if you actually get to hear them amid all the bland talk of CHANGE! and HOPE!...;)

Hat tip to Stephen at The Liberty Papers for the new TV ad. See link to watch.

Stephen then adds: (emphasis mine)

While driving yesterday, I was listening to NPR and they were discussing the NH Primaries. The theme was that many would-be Obama supporters were voting for McCain in effort to "make their votes count". Callers from NH were chiming in saying it was true.

The theory is that many independent Obama-leaners saw the polls and figured that their vote wouldn't count (ie wouldn't MATTER) if they voted for Obama. So, feeling Obama was safe, they decided to cast votes for McCain to make sure he beat Romney.

Greg Mankiw shows an interesting quote from an economics textbook in France:

"Economic growth imposes a hectic form of life, producing overwork, stress, nervous depression, cardiovascular disease and, according to some, even the development of cancer."

What are they writing in health books? that masturbation causes blindness?

American Heritage Dictionary -
soph·ism (sŏf'ĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. A plausible but fallacious argument.
2. Deceptive or fallacious argumentation.

[Middle English sophime, sophisme, from Old French sophime, from Latin sophisma, from Greek, from sophizesthai, to be subtle, from sophos, clever, wise.]

best answer at the debate . And if you didn't see it live or via youtube (like here), you'd never hear about it because it surely won't get any play in the media.

Hat tip to Lew Rockwell .

I thought this liberal case for Ron Paul was worth a posting. It's not going to suddenly get a leftist surge for Paul either here or Dkos or anywhere else for that matter but Stan Goff's (the author) case is pretty strong for showing how Paul would do more for the progressive cause than any of the Dem candidates.

Being dead certain about issues in a complex world is not easy. Last week, Tyler Cowen praised uncertainty in a posting that got quite a bit of play in the blogesphere and on his site. I guess it's more messy to talk about what you are uncertain about because the list is much longer and more open to interpretation than talking about certainties.

I found this quick word by Don Boudreaux to be quite telling about politics in general and how most still view the process...from Joe Six Pack on Main St, USA to a PhD at a large university.

After all, for all the idealism and passion for "the issues", it's still a dirty, dirty business that is not for the faint hearted or even the honest...at least not successfully.

Russ Roberts asks a very good question :

why should the failure of your favorite candidate for President to meet expectations in Iowa change your vote?........Why should you change your vote if your favorite candidate looks to be falling behind?.......Why is it wasting your vote to vote for a candidate who has a diminished or minimal chance of winning? You get no credit for voting for the winner. It's not a bet.

I couldn't agree more.

Hat tip to the lovely Megan McArdle for this interesting article by Becker and this other one by Posner (much longer and detailed) at the Becker-Posner Blog on the state of liberalism in academia.

Tyler Cowen links to a recommendation from the Am. Prospect:

Congress should simply outlaw adjustable-rate mortgages, which basically ask borrowers to treat their home mortgages like stocks...Congress should also ban private lenders and brokers from issuing sub-prime loans of any kind.

To which Tyler responds: