Dueling op-eds

Paul Krugman:

[W]hat the economy needs now is something to take the place of retrenching consumers. That means a major fiscal stimulus. And this time the stimulus should take the form of actual government spending rather than rebate checks that consumers probably wouldn't spend.

David Brooks:

Government spending is growing at an astounding pace. Congress and the president have thrown hundreds of billions into stimulus packages, domestic programs, military spending and other initiatives. Total federal spending is growing at a 13.8 percent annual rate.

Has all this money done anything to actually stimulate private economic activity? Not that you'd notice. Consumption is cratering. The U.S. economy just experienced the sharpest real drop in consumer spending since 1974.

The lesson here is that we have a right to be skeptical of so-called stimulus packages [but] nevertheless, economists continue to propose new stimulus ideas with unshaken confidence.

That's some pretty disingenuous stuff. Obviously David Brooks can't say "The lesson here i that Republicans have routinely blocked efforts at stimulus that, according to experts, would best stimulate the economy."

But, unless your goal is to misinform readers, or shape public opinion in a way that harms the economy, why say anything at all?

The punchline to Brooks' column is that, after deriding a class of professionals whose confidence is derived from genuine expertise, he goes ahead and advocates a major transportation spending initiative. Makes you wish Krugman could respond directly in his next column. Oh well.