

Perhaps part of it is because we are intellectually lazy, and it is just easier to defer to the voices of the loudest—especially if they are saying something we want to be true.

If I did, I would be able to personally bailout the economy—even though this conventional wisdom is laughably inaccurate.
But, nonetheless it is taken as a matter of faith that this is the consensus of all economists.

“There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery program that will help to jumpstart the economy.”
This is simply not true—and that does not mean the only naysayers are partisan Republican hacks or hired guns.

Three of them are Nobel Laureates, but are not media darlings like Paul Krugman:
Edward C. Prescott is Chairman of the Department of Economics at Arizona State University, and won the 2004 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for two important papers that advanced the field of dynamic macroeconomics.



What really makes me need a stiff drink, is that there is not one single instance of an economy being kick started out of a recession through government spending. Paul Krugman even admits this—albeit he says that FDR's New Deal was unsuccessful because it was not big enough.
In fact the truth is that all this Keynesian theory stuff had been pretty much discredited by economists until its resurrection by Democratic politicians in the last six months.


Now, some of this spending is good for providing a safety net until the economy gets back on track—but we should not pretend that it is an economic stimulus that is going to rocket us back to those glorious spendthrift days of the George W. Bush administration.
But despite what Paul Krugman and Barack Obama believe, it is no free lunch. If massive government spending grows the economy, then we should all be millionaires after eight years of George W. Bush.
While it is true that jobs will be created by the government spending, as usual the government is hopelessly inefficient.