When the history of the recent financial crisis and Great Recession is written, the basic conclusion that will be presented is that a financial crisis can be ended and a major recession turned around if the government throws massive amounts of money at the economy.

And, even after all this money is thrown at the economy, the calls for more and more stimulus remain. The lead editorial in the New York Times this morning calls for additional stimulus: see "The Case for More Stimulus", http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/opinion/27tue1.html. The Times struggles to come up with legitimate proposals for additional spending and comes up with only two: extending unemployment benefits and a program to "ease the dire financial condition of the states." The newspaper bails out with the claim that "To be highly effective as stimulus, cash aid must be targeted to needy populations." But, the Times can't do any better than that.

Spending is addictive. Once you start, it is hard to stop.

Another problem, however, is that it takes time for economic systems to work things out. Sure, a "cash for clunkers" program can goose up spending in August, but September turns into a bust.

Real programs take time because the programs not only have to be designed, resources have to be assembled, and the projects have to actually get started. Then the effects of the program must work their way through the economy. "Shovel ready" programs that have an immediate economic impact on a city or a region are really few and far between, as we have seen from the initial Obama stimulus package.

So, what time frame are we looking at for government stimulus to work its way through an economy? Maybe three to five years?

And, how do you measure the effectiveness of the government stimulus? The Wall Street Journal today attempts to provide some idea of how this question might be answered: see "The Challenge in Counting Stimulus Returns", http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125659862304009151.html#mod=todays_us_page_one. The conclusion of the author of the article is not encouraging.

Then there is the question about whether or not these programs replace or reduce other programs that would have been undertaken at this time. This is the question of the multiplier effect of government expenditures: is it above one or below one. Some of us believe that the multiplier for government spending is below 0.5. Not a very good bang for your buck!

And, what happens when people don't see any results, or, at best, minor improvements? They start clamoring for more and more stimulus as the New York Times does today. Frustration sets in and people over-react to the situation.