- Just because Charlie Sheen got drunk, did some other drugs, and committed adultery doesn’t mean he’ll do it again.
- Just because someone who calls himself Jack the Ripper has killed two women in London doesn’t mean he’ll do it again.
- Just because the U.S. dropped a hydrogen bomb that emits massive amounts of radiation on Hiroshima doesn’t mean they’ll do it again.
- Just because Megan McArdle makes mistakes when she tries to do financial analysis doesn’t mean she’ll do it again.
Feel free to add more in comments.
Cowen, by the way, wins the intellectually-inconsistent-in-a-short-period award (partially because Felix’s argument meanders more than Moses in the desert):
[T]he “we should have had a much bigger stimulus” argument is unlikely to go down in intellectual history as the correct view. Instead, Ken Rogoff and Scott Sumner are likely to go down as the prophets of our times. We needed a big dose of inflation, promptly, right after the downturn. Repeat and rinse as necessary.
Shorter Tyler Cowen: we didn’t need to put a lot more dollars into the economy than we did. Instead, we needed to put a lot more dollars into the economy than we did.
UPDATE: Mark Thoma is collecting reaction to the S&P’s alleged rationale as only he does. See especially Economics of Contempt’s post and this e-mail from the someone who has Been There and Done That.
*Who follows up his far-too-nuanced-for-me “FAQ.” But I am a Bear of Very Little Brain compared to such analysis.