Ok, I kinda figured you'd cop out. But denner is correct. There are a lot of well known economists who do not subscribe to your so-called "majority". In fact, there are more each day as they realize what a failure the current system is. At least you bow out definitively, and don't melt away like Ricter when he loses the argument. Of course, the excuse about "seeing how I debate" supposedly scaring you off when you get into dozens of far more viscous flame wars a day here is a rather flimsy one. Do I scare you all that much?
Except for one thing... Keynes was the original supply sider... Why do I have to keep showing you the same info... and you act like you never saw it. " When, on the contrary, I show, a little elaborately, as in the ensuing chapter, that to create wealth will increase the national income and that a large proportion of any increase in the national income will accrue to an Exchequer, amongst whose largest outgoings is the payment of incomes to those who are unemployed and whose receipts are a proportion of the incomes of those who are occupied... Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance than an increase of balancing the budget. For to take the opposite view today is to resemble a manufacturer who, running at a loss, decides to raise his price, and when his declining sales increase the loss, wrapping himself in the rectitude of plain arithmetic, decides that prudence requires him to raise the price still more--and who, when at last his account is balanced with nought on both sides, is still found righteously declaring that it would have been the act of a gambler to reduce the price when you were already making a loss."
There are a plethora of topics besides the supply-side one. If you're not open to debate, I'm sure we all understand why.
Which is why they behave the way they do when challenged to a debate. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EX55BH97quk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> You don't have to watch the whole thing, but... For 15 minutes of both education and entertainment - this is as good as it gets... Starting from around 35:00 the Spanish professor praises and criticizes in a thoughtful and gentle tone At around 39:00, he addresses the demand-side description of the world Krugman's less-than-happy response (which sparks quite a rowdy argument) begins around 48:20 Krugman behaves and speaks like everyone on this forum who defends him.
You see? This is the kind of stuff I don't want getting stuck on the bottom of my shoes. Jem, I commend you for your ability to pervert economic thought as well as all manner of scientific inquiry. You do your side proud.
Cutting and pasting is not "debate." I don't present myself as an expert. I've heard both sides of the argument and have made my choice based on reasoned judgment. You don't have any more special information or knowledge than the sources you regularly cite. So there is no real debate, there is at best reference made to arguments already presented. And even that leads to nowhere because of what you guys are capable of: calling Keynes a supply-sider. Just like when jem reads more into Dawkins off-handed comment that the universe "appears" designed. It's just not a rabbit hole worth taking. The thing about ET is that the fringe gets far more air time here than in the real world. There's that false equivalency thing again, eh?
You do know the sole reason Keynesian economics has any standing whatsoever is it's popularity with "kick the can down the road , get me elected now politicians" don't you. I mean c'mon it's the equivalent of adults legitimizing /worshiping the "tooth fairy".