I'm pretty sure that "ivy league nobel prize economists" == Krugman.
It's a fair response to Krugman - Krugman mostly doesn't discuss mechanisms, details, or include caveats. He just pushes the assertion more spending is good, if stimulus failed it's because it wasn't big enough, etc. Occasionally he makes false accusations against his ideological opponents (e.g., the Paul Ryan fiasco).
If a columnist is responding Paul Krugman or Glenn Beck types, you shouldn't expect much in the way of depth.
Not sure why you object. They are both cheerleaders for their respective teams, heavy on rhetoric, light on facts, willing to bend the truth, primarily preaching to the choir with appeals to emotion (intellectual smugness/moralism in Krugman's case, tribalism/moralism in Becks case).
But I suppose I am being a bit unfair in one respect. Unlike Krugman, Beck is occasionally willing to admit that some of the other teams ideas are not that bad (e.g., gay marriage).
It's a fair response to Krugman - Krugman mostly doesn't discuss mechanisms, details, or include caveats. He just pushes the assertion more spending is good, if stimulus failed it's because it wasn't big enough, etc. Occasionally he makes false accusations against his ideological opponents (e.g., the Paul Ryan fiasco).
If a columnist is responding Paul Krugman or Glenn Beck types, you shouldn't expect much in the way of depth.