More stimulus debate

The blogosphere debate about the stimulus continues. At least among the economists I read, since Tyler Cowen's scolding there has been a noticeable decline in name-calling polemics.

Regardless, there are some good explanations out now. The best comparison of views I've seen today comes from Arnold Kling. He explains the debate between Kevin Murphy and Brad DeLong, breaking down their assumptions in "plain english." You can judge for yourself who is using better assumptions.

Greg Mankiw posted the CBO's breakdown of the spending timeline, which might surprise you (unless you share my cynical view of Congress). The amount that will actually be spent this year is very, very small, considering the sense of urgency that stimulus proponents want to instill in us. This certainly violates Larry Summers' argument that government interventions should be "timely, targeted, and temporary." Of course, Krugman defends the lags here, but I just don't buy it. Despite its urgency, most of the effects of the stimulus will certainly not be felt for years. This will continue to stoke fears of a permanently expanded government, which is not something Obama wants to do so early in his tenure (considering his promises of consensus politics).

Menzie Chinn is one of my favorite economists. He discusses (and criticizes) five key reasons to believe the stimulus won't work here. Be sure to read the comments; he's a pretty fair observer.