Do you understand why well-known economists, including Nobel Prize winners, are on opposite sides of the debate about the stimulus package and what should be done about the recession?

Not only Americans, but people everywhere are confused, largely because the economists who are writing and speaking about what should be done have such fundamental disagreements.

There are two main schools of thought. One group is under the broad umbrella of the Chicago or Austrian school economists who are heavily influenced by the teachings of F.A. Hayek (1899-1992) and Milton Friedman (1912-2007).  The economists of the Reagan White House were of this school.

The members of the other group are commonly known as Keynesians, who accept many of the teachings of John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) and his disciples.  Mr. Obama's economists belong to this school.

Both schools offer reasonable explanations for what causes and what solves recessions.  But there is one outcome for which Keynesians have no solution:  stagflation.  It turns out that's just where we're headed.

Gen. David Petraeus has an unprecedented opportunity to seize back the momentum in Afghanistan: Neither President Obama nor Congress wants a confrontation with this general. During his honeymoon, he can write his own rules.

And he needs to. Fast.

To turn the current situation around, Petraeus has to address hundreds of what-now-boss? issues -- but a 10-item to-do list should top his priorities.

First, the big-picture stuff:

Maybe we should call this The Cornucopia Report this week.  The deluge of astonishingly good news keeps pouring down, with the moonbat left in response drowning in its own bile of rage and going off the cliff berserk-o.

Where to begin amidst this treasure trove?  Of course:  the Million Conservative March on Washington last Saturday (9/12).  With the LFM (Lunatic Fringe Media) desperately ignoring and disparaging it - reporting, e.g., that there were only "tens of thousands" when there were at least close to a million or more - this event marks a genuine turning point in American political history.

The only other event comparable was the August 28,1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom which launched the modern civil rights movement and at which Dr. Martin Luther King gave his famous "I Have A Dream" speech at the Lincoln Memorial.

There was, however, one major lack and disappointment.  Everyone remembers (or learns about in school) that 1963 event because of King's speech.  Where was our Dr. King?  Where was the speech that the vast multitude of conservatives wanted to hear?  In other words, where the hell was Sarah Palin?

If there's a parade of history, get out in front and lead it - or the parade and history will pass you by.  Carpe diem - or your day will be gone.  Sarah had better stop hiding from the world, stop confining herself to posts on Facebook, or this Teaparty Juggernaut will quickly find other leaders.  It's not too late, Sarah, but you are burning daylight.

Do you agree with President Obama, who has just limited the pay for executives in some, but not all, of the companies receiving government bailout money to $500,000 a year?

One could argue that $500,000 is too much, given that the president only makes $400,000 a year in a job with more responsibility and a larger budget than any other job in the world. Since there were plenty of would-be takers for that job, and some were arguably even qualified, why should we pay anyone more?

Many people who rely on the taxpayers, both in the United States and elsewhere, make far more than the president of the United States.  It turns out that the highest pad pubic employees in America are football coaches at taxpayer-funded public universities.  Should their salaries be capped just like Wall Street execs?

Germany's governing coalition is on the verge of collapse, but the country isn't. Berlin's the one major capital likely to survive the global economic plague in strapping health.

In the past, I've written mercilessly about German strategic freeloading, but it's time to give Herr Meier (the German Joe-Sixpack) his due: His attitudes toward spending and saving are admirable.

Germany isn't without problems. Its eastern states still haven't recovered from the triumphs of "real existing socialism." Its banks are dangerously exposed to southern European debt. Yet Germany books far more credits than debits. As much of Europe stumbles into negative growth, the German economy's expected to expand at 2.1 percent this year. That isn't dramatic, but it's solid.

President Obama insists that only added deficit spending can ease the consequences of our previous economic irresponsibility, but no serious German political leader's buying into his call to throw more money away. Instead, Germany's leaders are playing a strong defense, cutting social benefits and spending instead. They have much to teach Mr. Obama.

It is certainly and abundantly clear who is the HFR Hero of the Week this week: Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina.  Finally, a Republican in Congress who embodies speaking truth to power. 

"You lie!" now takes its place in history along with "death panels" demonstrating the politically castrative power of two simple words.  Sarah Palin's two words were a brilliantly limbic deligitimization of Zero's key program.  Joe Wilson's two words were an emotional outburst that will deligitimize Zero's entire presidency.

Wilson is who all conservatives long for, a Republican with balls.  The species is almost extinct.  The chief of staff of a prominent Republican Congressman confirmed to me this morning that the GOP House leadership, Minority Leader John Boehner and Minority Whip Eric Cantor, demanded Wilson make a formal apology on the House floor - and that Wilson refused.

When the chief of staff started defending Cantor and blaming Wilson, I lost my temper.  "When are you guys ever going to acquire a set of gonads?  When are your brains ever going to be connected to your spines?  Wilson is now a flat-out hero to millions!  There will be You lie! signs throughout the 50,000 TeaParty marchers on the Mall tomorrow, You lie! bumper stickers on cars in every state, shouts of You lie! at every Town Hall held by a Democrat - or RINO.  People are sick and tired of pussy wimp-out Republican limp dicks!  When are you guys going to figure this out?!"

I don't know if he'll speak to me again. I've known him for years, but frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. 

If you knew -- "a few weeks ago, the federal government had to commit several hundred billion dollars for a guarantee of Citicorp's assets, though examiners from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) have been inside the bank full-time for years, supervising the operations of this giant institution, under the broad powers granted by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 to bank supervisors" -- what would you think about the effectiveness of U.S. bank regulation?

The above quote comes from a thoughtful and important new paper, Regulation without Reason, by Peter J. Wallison, former general counsel of the U.S. Treasury and now a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Mr. Wallison warned for years - in books and articles - that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were headed for disaster, and now he is taking on the ill-thought out proposals to increase regulation of the financial industry, both by politicians and people who should know better.

The frightening thing is that many of the same intellectually and financially corrupt politicians - e.g. Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd - whose actions directly helped bring on the present crisis, have now been put in charge of the hen house and are tasked with "making reforms."

We're failing in Afghanistan. Confirmed as our new commander there, Gen. David Petraeus has the unenviable task of producing something President Obama can call a success.

If Petraeus can salvage the situation so that our minimum needs are met, he'll confirm his reputation as the greatest American soldier of our time. Should he falter, he'll go down as the general who sold the Pentagon a disastrous doctrine.

Petraeus did not want this job. But our president didn't know to whom else to turn in the wake of last week's debacle with Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Petraeus did his duty, saluted and said, "Yes, sir."

Politically, Obama couldn't have made a shrewder choice. Petraeus enjoys cult status on both the right and the moderate left. The question is whether he's the right man militarily.

Can this marriage be saved?

How many husbands have been blindsided with the most horrifying words in the English language for them - "I want a divorce!"?  It happens to wives too, but most often it's the guys who are clueless until the damage is irreparable.

Ask any marriage counselor, and they'll confirm that, try as they may with all their skill, once a certain tipping point of anger, contempt, and distrust has been attained by one spouse, there is little the other spouse can do to salvage the relationship.  It has to be sundered.

That tipping point may have been reached this week.  After being reminded of some pedophile cruising down the street asking schoolchildren, "Hi kids, want some candy?", the American people may be on the verge of demanding a divorce from the man they politically married last November.

If you knew economic growth and new job creation begin to slow when total government spending is larger than about 25 percent of the economy, and you knew total government spending in the United States is about 36 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) - would you propose policies to make government larger or smaller to create more jobs and boost economic growth?

Over the last few decades, many economists have done studies on the "optimum" size of government. A new study just completed shows the optimum size of government is less than 25 percent of GDP. Optimum is defined as that point just before government becomes so large as to reduce the rate of economic growth and job creation.

Rather than increasing the size of government, the empirical evidence shows that sharply reducing taxes, regulations, and government spending down to at least 25 percent of GDP would do the most to spur economic growth and create more jobs over the long run.

There is virtually no empirical evidence - in the United States or anywhere else - to support the belief of economists of the Keynesian school that a big increase in government spending will make matters better, rather than worse.