Also keep in mind that most WSJ articles are behind a paywall.
To be clear, my view is: The WSJ editorial board (not their news dept, which is exemplary) has backed a number of somewhat dubious economic ideas for nearly a century, between their own editorials and op-ed contributors with ideas far from the mainstream whose ideas have lacked empirical support, but are popular among certain interest groups. This also goes for scientific ideas with political implications, such as global warming (which i'll not discuss here).
I am not claiming that they're "wrong" in doing this - people clearly have a right to promote what they believe in - just that I think the many of the ideas themselves are wrong, and damaging to the economy overall but also the middle class. though that is a different and much longer conversation.
Topics include:
Support for "expansionary austerity" - ie. if governments spend less the economy will recover because of "confidence".
Debt and Growth (2013) http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB100014241278873235284045784...
The Real Stimulus Record (2012) http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB100008723963904448732045775...
Rejecting Macroeconomic theory as not common sense enough (ie. doesn't fit with 19th century micro)
Why Americans Hate Economics (2011) http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB100014240531119035969045765...
Unemployment insurance benefits "causes" or "encourages" unemployment
The Wages of Unemployment (2013) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732446160457819...
Stimulating unemployment (2010) http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB100014240527487037205045753...
Support for hard money (despite evidence that a gold standard was and would continue to be very deflationary and that current policies haven't been inflationary at all)
Bernanke: Currency Manipulator http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020453050457807...
Capitalism Needs a Sound Money Foundation (2009) http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB123440593696275773?mg=reno6...
Get ready for inflation and higher interest rates (2009) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124458888993599879.html
Counter-points:
Laffer's anti stimulus curve ball is a foul http://business.time.com/2012/08/09/arthur-laffers-anti-stim...
70% of economists believe that stimulus and monetary expansion (ie. fiat money) has helped the economic recovery
http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB100014240527487036253045751...
reduced participation in the labor force is due to boomer retirement, Not unemployment insurance
http://www.offthechartsblog.org/why-is-labor-force-participa...
Unemployment insurance has small negative effect on return to employment
