Finally, we are getting somewhere! The great debate about the size of the stimulus has begun!
I posted back on December 5th the size of the stimulus must at least $1.0T, and should probably be much larger. Boy, did I catch hell in the comments for attempting to quantify how much money needs to be spent because I did not know what I was doing. Lucky for me, Paul Krugman used the exact same methodology a several weeks later to estimate the size of the stimulus. Stop copping my riffs, Krugman!
I then posted that Obama's stimulus plan is probably too small to save the economy.
We finally have a debate starting and the initial consensus is: Obama's stimulus plan is too small! Take a look at the luminaries who are talking about the plan being too small.
The Obama team has released a paper which directly addresses how much the stimulus will impact the economy. Conclusion: not much.
Paul Krugman comments on the paper and says: We need way more stimulus and it needs to happen ASAP .
Prof. K also says: We will have a liquidity trap unless the plan gets much larger.
Steve Brennen of the Washington monthly does a quick overview that reviews everyone else and the consensus is: we need more stimulus
John Galbraith says we need more stimulus.
Matt Yglesias responds to my initial question in his usual detailed, multi-faceted manner here, here, here, and here.
Brad Delong addresses the size and some political issues here. He also talks about bang for the buck of the proposed tax cuts a bit with reference to TaxVox
Digby talks about thepolitical dance playing out, and how Obama is setting the stage with some help from John Kerry
Update: Josh Marshall gets in on the action.
Update 2: It is not only the size of the stimulus, it is the timing. Prof. Krugman talks about the threat of a deflationary liquidity trap if the timing is wrong. And how could I have missed John Kerry and Harkin saying the plan is too small?
Update 3: I missed Stiglitz too. Doh! thanks bigchin!