Lawmakers who are negotiating a final compromise in Washington, D.C., on the economic stimulus package tentatively agreed Wednesday on a $790 billion price tag. The Idaho Statesman invited two professors of economics and financeat Northwest Nazarene University in Nampa to debate the pros and cons of the stimulus.

The stimulus plan is a good idea.

Well, relative to what, you ask? And the answer is: relative to no stimulus bill at all.

Why might it be better to do nothing, which some people advocate? Because the economy is losing jobs at an accelerating rate. The unemployment rate is now 7.6% (12.6% for African-Americans); half of 3.6 million jobs lost have occurred in the last 3 months. Many people, through no fault of their own, are without employment, and will experience the personal and social costs unemployment. Among these are anxiety, family crises, divorce, homelessness, crime.

Concurrently, there are housing and financial crises. Without the stimulus bill, our economy might not be restored to a state of normalcy - i.e., reasonably full employment - for five years, during which time a lot of suffering would be experienced by a lot of people.

Is this suffering necessary? I am hoping the answer is no. So, the case for the stimulus bill is a case for reducing the extent and duration of the misery of many.

But, in economics, there is no free lunch. That means there is a cost, right? Yes.

This stimulus bill is not the best stimulus bill possible. We have watched the process it being patched together quickly, and the sight is not pretty. Few think it's a great stimulus bill. Most can find waste in this bill. But in politics, waste is like a garage sale. One person's waste is another's stimulus.

And of course, it's a very large bill. At least we think it is. Where did a number like $790 billion come from? From economic experts, who think that this magnitude is required to significantly affect the economy. Some experts say $790 billion is not even large enough. It's hard for people to get their mind around a number this large.

In the case of this stimulus bill, we must judge whether perfection (which is unattainable) is the enemy of the good, or even if "somewhat good" is the enemy of substantially worse.

The answer is yes. If we wait three months and study the issue carefully, I do not believe the political process would result in a stimulus bill that would be, net, much better.

Finally, if the stimulus bill succeeds in its goals, there will be downstream costs.

It may then be that in a few years government spending will supplant private spending - "crowding out" in economics jargon. This downstream cost will have been offset by the lower costs of a much milder recession. People will be back to work.

Yes, there will be whining about inflation (instead of deflation), but employment will have been restored, and the social costs of recession will have been minimized.

Why is the stimulus bill ultimately a good idea? Because in a civilized society we care about those among us are least advantaged and will suffer the most from joblessness.

This is why I support the stimulus bill, even though it's no panacea.

Reach Stephen S. Van der Ploeg, Ph.D., at ssvanderploeg@nnu.edu.