N otwithstanding the seeming popularity of the political slogan, It's the economy, s tupid , i t should come as no surprise to readers of this journal that the suggestions of prominent members of the economics profession are more often derisively dismissed or taken only with several none-too-small grains of salt rather than accepted as flowing from the fount of wisdom. One reason for the ambivalence with which the general public views economists is the schizophrenic nature of most of their analyses and policy recommendations. For example, at a time when most academic economists have abandoned the old Keynesian framework, both analysts and makers of policy still cling to the Keynesian paradigm (Mankiw 1990, pp. 1645-660). Even Alan Greenspan, that supposed champion of the free-market economy, has all the earmarks of a Keynesian when faced with the daunting task of staring down an approaching recession following an inflationary boom (Herbener 1995, 1998). Such schizophrenia also persists in the realm of economic journalism. An archetypical example is a recent news item bearing the headline, Behind Slow Growth in Europe: Citizens' Tight Grip on Wallets (Walker 2004, p. A1). In this story, seeking to explain why economic growth in Europe is slower than in the United States, the Wall Street Journal reporter cites the rather draconian regulatory environment with which entrepreneurs must cope. This seems like sound economic analysis, until the writer reveals his assumption that the negative effect such regulation has on economic expansion is felt most directly in inhibiting consumption spending, which it is implicitly assumed drives the economy. Thus we have a quintessential example of the mixing of sound concerns regarding burdensome regulations with a Keynesian fixation on consumption spending and its contribution to aggregate demand.