Stimulus Contest

by on January 21, 2009 at 7:05 am in Current Affairs | Permalink

The blog is having a contest.

Take any part of the stimulus bill
and write a short case for why it’s good or bad. (Recommended: search
the bill for “$” – there are more than 350 of them.) Pick anything –
from an entire government department to the smallest program. You can
even pick a non-spending provision in the bill that you think will do
good or bad.

Entries are limited to 150 words, and they will be judged on
clarity, persuasiveness, creativity, and originality. You don’t have to
be an economist – if you are, you really must avoid being boring. If it
takes a haiku or an infomercial-style pitch to make your case, do it.

Winners will receive $100.  Enter in the comments section here.

1 Bob Murphy January 21, 2009 at 9:19 am

Winners will receive $100.

If they were serious about fiscal responsibility, the winners would get 10% of the spending they demonstrated to be a bad idea.

2 eddie January 21, 2009 at 11:10 am

if you are [an economist], you really must avoid being boring.

That would make for a worthwhile contest all by itself!

3 Greg Ransom January 21, 2009 at 1:08 pm

This is like the old Foster and Catching contest — the one calling for analysis of their thesis that under consumption and lack of demand undermines profits and investment.

I.e. the massively influential contest in the 1920s that inspired Hoover, Roosevelt, Sen. Wagner — and eventually Hansen and Keynes, leading to modern Keynesian economics.

4 jad jar February 10, 2010 at 7:28 pm

thank you for this information.sis jarMy local telecom is a monopoly, and it is out-of-control as far as wiretapping, eavesdropping, hacking, controling e-mail programs, phishing, spoof websites, etc.
No company should be immune from law suits and especially companies that control our communications.To give telecoms immunity will make “big brother”free nokia 6600 games“In this incidence and extent of formal coauthorship observed in economics against that observed in biology and discuss the causes and consequences of formal coauthorship in both disciplines. We then investigate the economic value (to authors) of informal comments offered by colleagues. This investigation leads us naturally into a discussion of the degree to which formal collaboration through coauthorship serves as a substitute for informal collaboration through collegial commentary. Data on manuscript submissions to the Journal of PolzticalEconomy permit us to shed additional empirical light on this subject. Finally, we demonstrate that while the incidence and extent of formal intellectual collaboration through coauthorship are greater in biology than in economics, the incidence and extent of informal intellectual collaboration are greater in economics than in biology. This leads us to search for evidence (which we find) of quids pro quo offered by authors to suppliers of free nokia n70 games

5 lv September 24, 2010 at 5:10 am

if you are [an economist], you really must avoid being boring.

That would make for a worthwhile contest all by itself!

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: