9 OUT OF 107

(h/t Andrew Sullivan)

That's a batting average of .084, far below the Mendoza Line yet believers in the Free Market Fairy think it's conclusive proof that Keynes was terribly wrong. From Noah Kristula-Green at the Frum Forum:

Conservatives and Republicans have attempted to find empirical evidence to support their belief that economic growth can come with austerity.  They frequently cite a study done by Harvard economists Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna. The study looked at what the best ways for countries to reduce their deficits have been: whether through spending cuts or revenue increases. Their data shows that over the long-term, spending cuts are a better way to bring long-term deficits under control. A second study by Alesina went further and argued that “large, credible and decisive” cuts can be immediately followed by “sustained” growth.

THE TRUTH:

So what’s problematic with Alesina’s results? Alesina has indeed found cases where reducing spending was followed by economic growth and reduced deficits. The problem: he found very few cases. More specifically he found 9 examples out of 107 attempts to reduce spending.