Paul Krugman is the latest reason I think the Nobel Prizes are worthless (in addition to all the other Peace and Literature Nobel Prizes). Quote: "Here’s how I see it: the opponents of a strong stimulus plan don’t really have an alternative to offer."
I was tempted to call this drivel, but, on second thought, it is not. It is a sinister attempt to shift the burden of proof on one's opponents, and that almost reduces me to unbridled profanity, but I am trying to behave. A decent analogy I can think of would go something like this: someone holds a group of people hostage and justifies killing the guy in the wheelchair by pointing out that he asked everyone to pick someone else, and nobody did. No, Krugman, you bleeping idiot, I cannot offer you an alternative in your sick parallel universe, where my money is yours. In this one, here's an alternative: put down the bleeping spending gun, and begin to sort the bodies from the last few blasts.
Meanwhile, I am actively practicing Ricardian equivalence, namely, saving more than I want to, because I know that when this spending circlejerk is over, my taxes will go up, and I do not want to be poor. I do wonder how many others do the same, and to what extent it explains the wavering spending - and not only in the US.
Note to self: investigate availability and (if available) yields and tax treatment of leveraged municipal bond ETF's.