Remember that the people trying to make this world worse are not taking days off, so neither should we that are trying to make it better.

Inquiring Independents already know.

“In principle, I agree. However, there are multiple schools of thought in economics, mainly classical and Keynesian. After a rigorously unscientific survey, republicans tend to be classicists and democrats tend to be Keynesians.”

In some cases, some of the political views may derive from or be independent of the economics, but if the “economic theory” derives from the political preferences, then that economic “school of thought” would seem to be more in the nature of a rationalization than a legitimate formulation. I would tend to pay more attention to someone who seemed to be an economist first and foremost, rather than a politician or political commentator who claims to have suddenly developed a consuming interest in theory. I am also wary of pronouncements by those who seem to have a financial stake in political outcome – their opinions may be biased. I tend to put more stock in the opinions of university economics professors, for instance – people who have, quite typically, passed up the chance to make bigger bucks in more remunerative areas of the larger to community to devote their careers to doing the best they can to discover and analyze the truth of the matter, and whose reputations within their field depends largely on the cogency of their intellectual products as judged by their peers within the discipline.

I put all this information here as it seems that we forget the size of what we are doing. It appears that none of the 487 folks in control (435 in the house, 50 in the senate, + president of the senate + president) are applying problem solving skills to their decision making. It also appears that no one here is, or really, elsewhere.

I say someone has been using problem solving skills when I can point to each of the following steps as being done (meaning I can show the result of each step).

· Understand the problem by processing information about it.
· Analyze the problem by breaking the problem down into its component dimensions.
· Expand alternative courses to solve the problem.
· Define values to study the impact of the alternative courses.
· Evaluate courses of action based upon the most positive impact on our values.
· Improve courses of action.

(source: http://www.hrdpress.com/Productive-Problem-Solving-PPS)

More details are there.

(TAF) Term Auction Credit (allocated) : 900 billion
AIG (allocated minus Treasury 40B) : 112.5 billion
Bear Stearns (initial loan to JPMorgan) : 29.5 billion
(TSLF) Term Securities Lending Facility : 225 billion
(MMIFF) Money Market Investor Funding Facility (allocated) : 540 billion
(CPFF) Commercial Paper Funding Facility *upper limit from Reuters : 1800 billion
(TALF) Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility : 200 billion
GSE MBS NO NAME Program : 600 billion
(TARP) Treasury Asset Relief Program : 700 billion
Exchange Stabilization Fund to guarantee principal in money market mutual funds : 50 billion
Treasury direct purchases of MBS since Sept. (08) : 26.5 billion
Citigroup (Treasury+FDIC guarantees) : 238.5 billion
Guarantees for Banks : 1900 billion

Automakers : 25 billion
(FHA) Federal Housing Administration : 300 billion
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac : 350 billion

total ~ 7.361 Trillion $

In principle, I agree. However, there are multiple schools of thought in economics, mainly classical and Keynesian. After a rigorously unscientific survey, republicans tend to be classicists and democrats tend to be Keynesians.

If an “economist’s” economic views depend upon his political views, then his economic views are compromised and insufficiently thought out.

Economists’ views on the New Deal vary greatly, depending on their political views. Plenty think that the new deal programs weren’t big enough to to much of anything. Others point to FDR’s tax increases ~1936/1937, while trying to balance the budget, that prolonged the depression.

I’m sure our fellow blog readers can come up with links to support these, and plenty of other viewpoints.

I won’t argue that basic scientific research benefits everyone. Life for the average person in 1300 AD was no different than it had been in 1300 BC. Life today, however, is vastly better for the majority of people in the world and we have science and technology – plus free markets – to thank for it. Science spurs technology which spurs innovation and economic development.

However, economies are more complex than any one person or committee of the most learned experts can ever comprehend or control. No one can say if the stimulus package will make things better or worse than if the economy were left alone to recover on its own. That extra $$ won’t appear out of the quantum vaccuum – it has to be taken away from some other part of the economy that will suffer as a result. By the way, many economists today believe that FDR’s New Deal did more harm than good and probably prolonged the Great Depression.

Science needs reliable, long term budget support over decades. I fear this ‘stimulus’ will be akin to a hit of cocaine, with a predictable crash at the end.