In an LA times editorial, Niall Ferguson augments his Feb. 2 Financial Times piece, which I commented on earlier, with much more explicit Keynes-bashing and fiscal-stimulus-dissing.  This time, Brad's on the case.

Long Treasury yields did rise a bit (roughly from just under 3, to just over 3.5, percent over the last few weeks), and there was similar if less pronounced movement across the longer end of the curve, so maybe we shouldn't count on financing the whole stimulus at todays low rates---though I couldn't tell you if this is a response to the clear likelihood of a stimulus package, which I would have thought would have been priced in for a while now.  But if we're getting output closer to potential, sooner, with the stimulus, we're increasing the overall stream of real output that the Treasury will have avaible to tax to pay these things back---increased indebtedness being met with increased debt-servicing capability.  Maybe not one-for-one, although that cuddly, big-eyed multiplier sure helps.  The cuddly reference:  "Uneasily aware that their discipline almost entirely failed to anticipate the current crisis, they seem to be regressing to macroeconomic childhood, clutching the Keynesian "multiplier effect" -- which holds that a dollar spent by the government begets more than a dollar's worth of additional economic output -- like an old teddy bear."---Ferguson from the LA Times piece.)  Among the most multiplier-besotted economists would seem to be Paul Krugman;  here is a fairly random sample of him failing to anticipate the current crisis (you can go back much further with him on the dangers --- and let's not forget, the existence --- of the housing bubble).  As for regression to childhood, there seems to be a more serious epidemic among some (but far from all!) politically conservative economists, of regression to being macroeconomically unborn.  What's Ferguson's argument here: If they teach it in Econ 1 in every halfway respectable university in the country, there can't be anything to it?