Andrew Leigh is proud of the wrong arguments

Comments on Andrew Leigh’s own blog on the 21 economists’ letter, June 2009, http://andrewleigh.com/?p=2104

With due respect, I think that letter is full of nonsense. I sent part one of my comments on that letter to AFR, though the letter facility, but I don't know if they will publish that. I have posted in a blob as:
http://mrlincolns.blogspot.com/2009/06/21-prominent-aussie-economists-half.html

I am preparing part two of my comments on that letter which will focus on more specific points of that letter. When it is finished I will advise you.

I think that letter has problems with simple logic. It is confusing at the best and deeply misleading at the others. The first part of my comments deals with the letter's quote of Krugman and Blanchard. To quote from famous economist to start off the letter is weak at the best and to use them as supports for own illogical arguments is laughable. You and other can have a look how those quotes are problematic, from part one of my comments.

I provide the following brief comment, to give you a flavour why that letter is wrong. The main point is that the letter misses the point of the current debate on the government debt. The main issue is not about whether it is necessary to have a debt, but what level of it. Related to it is whether every government fiscal measure is necessary and effective in stimulating the economy and cost effective.