400 Economists, including 5 Nobel laureates, endorse Romney

[Jhhnn]

I do love it. The 5 nobel winners include:

Two Chicago school monetarists, nevermind that monetarism doesn't work in a liquidity trap...

The father of the Euro, and we can see how well that's working out...

One hard line supply sider whose as relevant today as tits on a boar...

And dear Mr Scholes, of LTCM & failed offshore tax dodge fame...

Helluva team...

 

[Bowfinger]

Okay, so you're not actually interested in discussing this issue at all. You're just another propagandist.

Exactly. Based on his last appearance here, you'll find his persona is much like Cybrsage, only less prolific and far more pretentious. He is here to spread the propaganda points, not to engage in productive discussion.

 

[mect]

I do love it. The 5 nobel winners include:

Two Chicago school monetarists, nevermind that monetarism doesn't work in a liquidity trap...

The father of the Euro, and we can see how well that's working out...

One hard line supply sider whose as relevant today as tits on a boar...

And dear Mr Scholes, of LTCM & failed offshore tax dodge fame...

Helluva team...

I love how you are lecturing Nobel laureates on economics. Yeah, they must really suck at what they do. I mean, that's what the awards are there for, right. When I see someone that gets a Nobel prize in chemistry, I know to just ignore everything that person has to say when it comes to chemistry. You are clearly more qualified than these imbeciles.

 

[Jhhnn]

I love how you are lecturing Nobel laureates on economics. Yeah, they must really suck at what they do. I mean, that's what the awards are there for, right. When I see someone that gets a Nobel prize in chemistry, I know to just ignore everything that person has to say when it comes to chemistry. You are clearly more qualified than these imbeciles.

Heh. It's not like I'm basing my opinion on thin air.

I'll take Akerlof, Stiglitz, Krugman, Diamond, Thoma, Kenworthy & many others over the rightwing clowncar offered up by the OP.

 

[mect]

Heh. It's not like I'm basing my opinion on thin air.

I'll take Akerlof, Stiglitz, Krugman, Diamond, Thoma, Kenworthy & many others over the rightwing clowncar offered up by the OP.

That is fine to take their opinion over those in the OP. But personally, where it isn't my field, I'll not be making any kind of authoritative statements marginalizing the opinions of Nobel laureates, or anyone else with significantly more knowledge about economics than I possess. It is one thing to say that you find the arguments of one set of experts more convincing, it is another to say that other top experts that disagree don't know what their talking about. Basically, I'd say you are essentially basing your opinion on thin air, because you take your list over the OPs not because you've carefully studied the matter, but rather because their opinions match your beliefs. If you only accept the results of careful study when they support beliefs you already hold, you might as well be basing your opinion on thin air.

And I can tell from your attitude that you have not carefully studied the matter to arrive at your conclusion, because if you had, you would at least be able to respect the dissenting opinion of experts. It is your own ignorance that leads you to call them the rightwing clowncar. Ask yourself, if they are so silly, what has led people to hire them to positions at institutions such as MIT, Stanford, University of Chicago, John Hopkins, among others. These schools just must not care much about credibility when selecting faculty.

Now, I actually suspect that there will be a counter movement to this by economists similar to what happened with the Bush tax cuts in 2003. I suspect a group of economists probably will come out in opposition to Romney's economic strategy. And we will have to make the best judgment we can. I will not make that judgment thinking that I know more than the experts I didn't follow.

 

[IAteYourMother]

I love how you are lecturing Nobel laureates on economics. Yeah, they must really suck at what they do. I mean, that's what the awards are there for, right. When I see someone that gets a Nobel prize in chemistry, I know to just ignore everything that person has to say when it comes to chemistry. You are clearly more qualified than these imbeciles.

The thing is that while they might be smart, there are also just as many smart people (Nobel Laureates included), if not more, that would disagree. When politics gets mixed up in "science," even smart people tend to do stupid things.

 

[mshan]

"As the S&P 500 makes new multi-year highs, the USD dumps, commodities surge, and AAPL just does what it does best; The Fed's Dennis Lockhart has just 'subtly' announced the walking-back of expectations of QE3 happening anytime soon, via Bloomberg:

*LOCKHART SAYS `MONETARY POLICY IS NOT A PANACEA'

*LOCKHART SAYS ECONOMIC DATA HAVE BEEN `FIRM' IN LAST MONTH

*LOCKHART SAYS HOUSING IS STABILIZING AND `ENCOURAGING'

*LOCKHART: MONTHLY UNEMPLOYMENT RISE SHOULDN'T BE EXAGGERATED*

*LOCKHART SEES `MORE APPETITE FOR RISK'


and critically:

*LOCKHART SAYS DISINFLATION, DEFLATION NOT NOW A CONCERN"


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/feds-lockhart-kills-hopes-further-qeasing

Whole Foods co-CEO on NBR previously said he had seen disinflation for last 18 month, sees 2% inflation for rest of year, and 3 - 4% inflation next year because of drought destroying corn (he said he felt it was manageable). Beef prices might actually come down in short-term (because cows sent to slaughter now instead of having to continue feeding more expensive feed), but will spike next year (6 - 9 month lag)

There was some macrostrategist on NBR last week (I think Wells Fargo macrostrategist) who said he saw 3% inflation for next 10 - 15 years. Morningstar economist Bob Johnson has said that 4% inflation is what typically kills off recoveries, and apparently we got really close to that last summer. His most recent commentary from last Saturday is here: http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=565143

I forgot where I read it, but somewhere I remember reading that Bernanke may not be pushing stimulus on the scale Krugman wants (really try and boost employment right now?), to keep inflation over long-term under control, and hopefully produce a decade or more of prosperity (new Morning in America?) (probably not starting for a few more years, until U. S. consumer has completed deleveraging of debt from bubble years).


* Uptick in unemployment rate mentioned above I read was rounding error (rounded up to 8.3% last month, rounded down to 8.2% previous months).

 

[mect]

The thing is that while they might be smart, there are also just as many smart people (Nobel Laureates included), if not more, that would disagree. When politics gets mixed up in "science," even smart people tend to do stupid things.

See my reply above. It is one thing if it were Nobel prize laureates in economics making statements on the science of global warming. It is another when they are commenting specifically on economic policy. While smart people do stupid things, it is extremely arrogant for someone whose economic experience includes maybe econ 101 along with reading some books targeted at general audiences to marginalize the opinions of experts in the field, especially when there doesn't appear to be a broad consensus. I agree, there probably are a significant number that will disagree. There were 10 Nobel laureates in economics that came out against the Bush tax cuts. I imagine a significant number of those will probably chime in on this. The difference is, I will take the opinions of both seriously, rather than just tossing out one group's opinion simply because it doesn't match my own.

 

[blankslate]

The difference is, I will take the opinions of both seriously, rather than just tossing out one group's opinion simply because it doesn't match my own.

when a person is making an appeal to authority in regards to politics as I think has happened in this thread. It is useful imo to point out the mistakes noted by some of the Nobel prize winners who are cited as part of that authority

As for taking what they say seriously? well...

When politics gets mixed up in "science," even smart people tend to do stupid things.

 

[mshan]

Also heard on CNBC this morning:

Unemployment rate for those with 4 years of college education -> 4.1%



(I think it was Mark Zandi who made comment (Obama supporter, tends to see things as glass half full, but it sounded like he was just stating a fact, not expressing an opinion).

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Also heard on CNBC this morning:

Unemployment rate for those with 4 years of college education -> 4.1%

Of course, commentators always forget to investigate whether the college grads are underemployed-involuntarily-out-of-field and suffering from large student loan burdens (that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy). For example:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/why-did-17-million-students-go-to-college/27634

Over 317,000 waiters and waitresses have college degrees (over 8,000 of them have doctoral or professional degrees), along with over 80,000 bartenders, and over 18,000 parking lot attendants. All told, some 17,000,000 Americans with college degrees are doing jobs that the BLS says require less than the skill levels associated with a bachelor’s degree.

 

[mshan]

"October 20, 2010, 9:53 am

By Richard Vedder

Two sets of information were presented to me in the last 24 hours that have dramatically reinforced my feeling that diminishing returns have set in to investments in higher education, with increasing evidence suggesting that we are in one respect “overinvesting” in the field. First, following up on information provided by former student Douglas Himes at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), my sidekick Chris Matgouranis showed me the table reproduced below (And for more see this)."

Just glanced at the article, but it is almost 2 years old.

Economy, and employment, are probably much better now than then.

In particular, Ben Bernanke said he had hypothesis about surge in new job hiring from last fall / early this year - it was a one time reversal of massive layoffs that took place right after stock market crashed and Bush near Depression started (companies saw their credit lines from banks dry up, feared going out of business because they didn't have money to keep doors open, and shed massive amount of jobs and scaled back operations to the bone to maxmize likelihood that they just survive when credit was completely non-existent).

 

[mshan]

Found this via google:

How Many Jobs Has Obama Created or Lost? (July 2012 update)

How has Obama done on jobs?

How Has Obama done on private-sector jobs?



Since the "trough" of the recession in late 2009/early 2010:

4,001,000 MORE jobs in total

4,545,000 MORE private sector jobs

4,252,000 MORE people working




Since Bush left office & Obama took office (January 2009):

316,000 FEWER jobs in total

But:

332,000 MORE private sector jobs

33,000 MORE people working





Since the stimulus was passed (# as of March 12, 2009):

1,207,000 MORE jobs in total

1,844,000 MORE private sector jobs

1,466,000 MORE people working





Have any private jobs been lost (net) over the past 29 months?

NO!

29 months of consecutive private-sector job growth.





Have any jobs been lost (net) over the past 22 months?

NO!

22 months of consecutive over all job growth.



http://mollysmiddleamerica.blogspot.com/2012/08/how-many-jobs-has-obama-created-or-lost.html

If that stat Obama is flat or slightly up from end of Bush's second term in terms of job creation, that is surprising vs. what seems to be consensus impression one might get from what is seen in main stream media.

If (again if) that figure it correct, I guess it is same as claim that gas prices have rocketed up from sub $2 range as Bush near Depression was taking hold (vs. approaching $5 from just months before, during the summer of 2008).

 

[mshan]

BLS website confirms "official" 4.1% unemployment rate for people with 4 years of college education:

Less than high school education -> 12.7%

High school education -> 8.7%

Some college or associate degree -> 7.1%

4 years of college education -> 4.1%




By Education Level attained: http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea05.htm

By Race / Sex: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat07.htm

(not sure if I heard this comment on tv this morning correctly, but I think commentator said 40% of unemployed are construction workers)

 

[diesbudt]

BLS website confirms "official" 4.1% unemployment rate for people with 4 years of college education:

Less than high school education -> 12.7%

High school education -> 8.7%

Some college or associate degree -> 7.1%

4 years of college education -> 4.1%




By Education Level attained: http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea05.htm

By Race / Sex: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat07.htm

(not sure if I heard this comment on tv this morning correctly, but I think commentator said 40% of unemployed are construction workers)

I have always wondered how they came up with these stats.

 

[mshan]

Morningstar economist Bob Johnson (http://news.morningstar.com/archive/archive.asp?inputs=authorId=696) discussed that recently in one of his video clips:

"Stipp: Bob, I want to talk a little bit about the unemployment rate, and this is calculated off of a separate survey, the household survey. There is also employment data in there as well, that they used to calculate that rate. How does that compare with the establishment survey, which is the number of jobs added that everyone takes a look at.

Johnson: The gold standard is considered the establishment survey, because [it is] actual payroll data that's turned in by corporations; it misses certain self-employed workers, and they have to take into account they can't reach certain businesses, and what do you assume about the businesses that don't answer back? Did they go out of business or just get lost in the mail, so to speak.

So there are a lot of adjustments in there, but less so to worry about then on the household survey, where they actually call up and say, do you have a job? And of course a lot of time you call somebody on the phone, and he'll say, yeah of course I have a job. If some stranger calls and says, are you working? Your first response isn't, no, I'm out, and I'm a bum. And so they always question this report a little bit, but the two over time do kind of move together eventually. The households survey had been better than the establishment survey for the last two or three months.

Now this month the household survey actually showed that employment went down by a couple of hundred thousand people even. That's why the unemployment rate went up. They count jobs two different ways. So that's what happened this month with that statistic.

Stipp: So there could be a little bit of noise in there if that statistic had been running ahead the last few months, maybe little bit of correction there. Vishnu, do you think underlying in the fundamentals, though, that unemployment rate ticking up is a bad sign or is this not significant, in effect that it just ticked up a tenth of a percent.

Lekraj: Well, it makes sense, because you need 250,000 job growth on nonfarm, the establishment survey side, in order to see any material movement from the household survey. We haven’t been doing that. So it's understandable the rate is a little bit flat or a little bit higher. There's nothing to get very worried about, but at an 8% unemployment rate that's averaged over this year, it's not good. We need to bring that down and hopefully that will happen over the next six months."

http://www.morningstar.com/cover/videocenter.aspx?id=563032

IIRC, actual jobs created number is calculated from samples of data they collect from some big employers, but unemployment rate is based upon a different (household?) survey where they just get on the phone and call people and ask if have a job or not (shaky number?)

The ADP report he said is based upon actual payroll data that company collects from client companies that it creates paychecks for. He said it has been more optimistic than BLS right now, hypothetizing that it is skewed up because the clients it has are particularly strong right now.

Seasonal adjustment of government statistics apparently making good numbers better than they actually are and bad numbers worse than they are. e. g. when Retail Sales in June (?) fell off a cliff and was consistent with recession, madman Cramer has an opening rant about how actual retailers such as Walmart, Costco, and Target have much better data points than antiquated government collection of data:

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000103065&play=1 (Cramer)

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2258186&highlight=retail+sales (skewing of seasonal adjustment factor)



CEO in Intuit (Quickbooks payroll software) says he sees small businesses hiring at 2% rate (consistent with what Bob Johnson see, 1.8 - 2% sluggish but steady job growth in economy over last few years): http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000110970&play=1 (1:15 mark)






edit: I also remember hearing on tv that while the official monthly jobs report gets revised after the fact (i. e. the seasonally adjusted number of jobs supposed created the previous month), the unemployment rate is not revised.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Just glanced at the article, but it is almost 2 years old.

Economy, and employment, are probably much better now than then.

In particular, Ben Bernanke said he had hypothesis about surge in new job hiring from last fall / early this year - it was a one time reversal of massive layoffs that took place right after stock market crashed and Bush near Depression started (companies saw their credit lines from banks dry up, feared going out of business because they didn't have money to keep doors open, and shed massive amount of jobs and scaled back operations to the bone to maxmize likelihood that they just survive when credit was completely non-existent).

The point is that there are only so many jobs out there that require or make use of a college education. Thus, a large number of college graduates are going to end up unemployed or underemployed-and-involuntarily-out-of-field.

The idea that if everyone goes to college, jobs that require a college education at currently prevailing wage rates will magically materialize for everyone is ridiculous.

 

[mshan]

I understand and accept your point.

Point I was arguing was more general one that employment situation for most (i. e. those with full time job they are comfortable they won't lose now) is much better than one would think from just watching newsflow.

To the working poor (couple part time jobs and still need food stamps to even make ends meet) and minorities*, this probably still feels like the Great Depression. Except, as Dave Rosenberg of Gluskin Sheff said, we don't have physical soup lines now because help comes as electronic debit cards now. I remember Walmart CEO making comments a year or two ago about how he saw pattern that store would suddenly fill up right when recharge on those debit cards got filled. I think he also recently said he saw pattern recently of his customers around world coming into store right at time of paycheck.

Compare and contrast that to how insanely busy I-95 in New Jersey last few weekends. Stopped at rest area in upper New Jersey on last Saturday around 2 PM and place was absolutely packed (never seen it this packed ever, even during height of Bush bubble years). No bus tours unloading their passengers for bathroom break, just tons of cars in parking lot and tons of people inside buying food etc. Driving back on Sunday, had backups at toll booth ez pass lands in Maryland where that never occurs. Huge congestion on I-95, and again rest area absolutely packed with people with kids on summer vacation. I would guess most of these people are likely to be Target or Costco shoppers (see Cramer's video rant above) than core Walmart shopper.

I think it was Morningstar economist Bob Johnson who said this comment, but whomever it was said that back to school says were lack-luster last year, probably in part because we were starting to have those wild swings in Dow (400 or 500 point drops, I forgot what actual amounts were) as Greece was getting discussed on tv and back to school shoppers might have been hesitant to splurge. He says consumer income (http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2263109&highlight=bloomberg) up this whole year, that people have temporarily been saving instead of spending it, but perhaps stock market not crashing and guilt about not spending enough on kids will make for surprisingly robust back to school sales this year (?)

Stark contrast between haves and have nots.




* http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...-misses-job-interview-to-save-baby-on-tracks/ This man had been trying to find work for over one year, was actually on his way to job interview at time of incident, said afterwards when asked what he wanted as a reward that he just wanted a job, and then was crying at outpouring of job offers from people seeing the story, but took job at international terminal at JFK terminal as janitor. He wasn't asking for food stamps, welfare, or handout, he just wanted a job so he could support his family:

"Delroy Simmonds was on his way to apply for a maintenance position at a warehouse when a baby in a carriage was blown onto the tracks at the Van Siclen Ave. station Brooklyn, according to Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The tracks at Van Siclen are elevated several stories above street level.

Simmonds jumped onto the tracks, grabbed the bleeding little boy and pulled him in his stroller to safety.

“I jumped down and I snatched the baby up,” Simmonds told Daily News. “The train was coming around the corner as I lifted the baby from the tracks. I really wasn’t thinking.”

Nevertheless, the Brooklyn father of two told said he’s no superhero, that any man would have done the same.

“Everybody is making me out to be some sort of superhero,” Simmonds said. “I’m just a normal person. Anybody in that situation should have done what I did.”

Simmonds told the newspaper strong gusts of wind were blowing 30-50 miles per hour, and a woman with four kids was standing on the platform. The wind blew the stroller onto the tracks.

Charles Seaton, spokesman for the MTA, says winds on Monday posed a threat for all passengers. Officials are now warning everyone to stand further away from tracks.

“We tell all people to stay well back from the tracks, and that would include with their baby strollers and carriages,” Seaton said. “That includes above ground and below ground stations, regardless of the weather.”

Seaton says as of now the MTA isn’t doing anything for Simmonds and his bravery.

“He’s a hero. What he did was an extremely heroic thing,” Seaton said.

One woman who was also waiting for the J train, 21-year-old Khalima Ansari, recalls the incident.

“The baby had a big gash on his forehead. You could see his skull,” Ansari told Daily News.

She says she called 911 immediately after Simmond’s heroic actions.

The baby was taken to Brookdale University Hospital and treated for minor injuries.

Simmonds didn’t wait around after the rescue. He says he would have done the same thing in any other circumstance.

“It was the fatherly instinct. I have two daughters of my own — 8 and 5. I was being a father. I would have done it for any baby,” Simmonds said.

Now, the father hopes to find employment.

“What I really need is a job,” he said."

 

[cybrsage]

Exactly. Based on his last appearance here, you'll find his persona is much like Cybrsage, only less prolific and far more pretentious. He is here to spread the propaganda points, not to engage in productive discussion.

OW! The butt-hurt you have is appears quite painful. I recommend seeing a doctor for it.

 

[Jhhnn]

That is fine to take their opinion over those in the OP. But personally, where it isn't my field, I'll not be making any kind of authoritative statements marginalizing the opinions of Nobel laureates, or anyone else with significantly more knowledge about economics than I possess. It is one thing to say that you find the arguments of one set of experts more convincing, it is another to say that other top experts that disagree don't know what their talking about. Basically, I'd say you are essentially basing your opinion on thin air, because you take your list over the OPs not because you've carefully studied the matter, but rather because their opinions match your beliefs. If you only accept the results of careful study when they support beliefs you already hold, you might as well be basing your opinion on thin air.

And I can tell from your attitude that you have not carefully studied the matter to arrive at your conclusion, because if you had, you would at least be able to respect the dissenting opinion of experts. It is your own ignorance that leads you to call them the rightwing clowncar. Ask yourself, if they are so silly, what has led people to hire them to positions at institutions such as MIT, Stanford, University of Chicago, John Hopkins, among others. These schools just must not care much about credibility when selecting faculty.

Now, I actually suspect that there will be a counter movement to this by economists similar to what happened with the Bush tax cuts in 2003. I suspect a group of economists probably will come out in opposition to Romney's economic strategy. And we will have to make the best judgment we can. I will not make that judgment thinking that I know more than the experts I didn't follow.

Nice dance, except for a few little things. Academics often have huge egos, and will go to extraordinary lengths to defend their professional reputations, even to the point of denying obvious facts. Those who work for rightwing thinktanks were selected for their views, and are defending not just that, but their paychecks as well.

And the fact remains that Romney policy is essentially McCain policy which is essentially Bush policy, which has obviously *failed* to deliver, other than to the financial elite. We live in the aftermath of the greatest financial looting spree in history, and have been wounded as a result.

If low taxes at the top create jobs, the mantra of the Romney campaign, then where the fuck are the jobs, given that top tier and corporate taxes are at their lowest ebb since the 1920's?

What the Hell would lead anybody to believe that more of the same won't yield more of the same, other than ideological delusions?

 

[cybrsage]

Nice dance, except for a few little things. Academics often have huge egos, and will go to extraordinary lengths to defend their professional reputations, even to the point of denying obvious facts. Those who work for rightwing thinktanks were selected for their views, and are defending not just that, but their paychecks as well.

Reminds me of global warming science...

 

[Jhhnn]

Reminds me of global warming science...

When you have no argument, resort to derision & false equivalency.

Your bunker o' denial is that-a-way...

 

[cybrsage]

When you have no argument, resort to derision & false equivalency.

Your bunker o' denial is that-a-way...

You lead the way, I used your arguement you know. Don't you hate it when you slam your own argument as stupid? Wait, you must love it, you do it quite often.

 

[Jhhnn]

You lead the way, I used your arguement you know. Don't you hate it when you slam your own argument as stupid? Wait, you must love it, you do it quite often.

You didn't make an argument at all, let alone use mine.

"Reminds me of global warming science" isn't an argument. It's just you hooting in the jungle to let other members of the troop know you're around... and that you still believe.

 

[cybrsage]

You didn't make an argument at all, let alone use mine.

"Reminds me of global warming science" isn't an argument. It's just you hooting in the jungle to let other members of the troop know you're around... and that you still believe.

Lets try again, this time please do not "forget" what you posted mere moments before. I will repost it for you, since your memory span has been proven to be exceedingly short.

YOU: "Nice dance, except for a few little things. Academics often have huge egos, and will go to extraordinary lengths to defend their professional reputations, even to the point of denying obvious facts. Those who work for rightwing thinktanks were selected for their views, and are defending not just that, but their paychecks as well."

This same argument can be used against the global warming scientists. Yes, YOUR argument, which I just copied and pasted. The one YOU wrote...that I quoted previously. That one.

Understand yet, or are you going to "forget" you ever said it still?