400 Economists, including 5 Nobel laureates, endorse Romney

[Hayabusa Rider]

While both sides do it, it's been more than a bit worse from the Republicans for the last few years. There's been more than a few reports and statements that the Reps absolutely refuse to compromise in any way.

That's true. Unfortunately there seems to be more interest in cooperation than the quality of thought that goes into legislation today. We have a "pick just one two" menu of economic solutions. We either get stimulus or tax cuts. These are pretty much the same choices every time. Increasing corporate board accountability? Trade reform? Other ideas? Originality? Outside the box? It ain't happening and we're so conditioned to accept one of the other we'll defend these as sacrosanct.

 

[Conscript]

Linking to national polls and statistical analysis is like linking to ATPN?

no offense meant, some people get their information from ATPN, some from sites like "realclearpolitics", and then the rest of the informed when looking for meaningful polls will look at something from Gallup... so yea, RLY

 

[DCal430]

Bunch of people who only care about money support Romney, I am not surprised.

 

[alzan]

Economists for Romney is an independent, voluntary association of economists who support Governor Romney’s economic plan for America. Economists for Romney is not an official arm of the 2012 Mitt Romney campaign, nor does it accept dues, fees, donations, or contributions.

Still looking for that independent "Economists for Obama" group.

Still looking...

Still looking...

:hmm:

So what do the other 14,600 economists have to say?

Still waiting...

Still waiting...

:hmm:

 

[Jhhnn]

That's true. Unfortunately there seems to be more interest in cooperation than the quality of thought that goes into legislation today. We have a "pick just one two" menu of economic solutions. We either get stimulus or tax cuts. These are pretty much the same choices every time. Increasing corporate board accountability? Trade reform? Other ideas? Originality? Outside the box? It ain't happening and we're so conditioned to accept one of the other we'll defend these as sacrosanct.

The consumer protection agency was created by Dems, and is under constant attack by Repubs. While it's not revolutionary in an accountability sense it's a lot more than nothing.

When there's no getting even conventional thinking past Repubs, what use is it to propose anything more radical, other than to have yourself labeled as radical?

They have limited answers to any problem- tax cuts, deregulation & vouchers. Plus voter ID & the Patriot act. If you think that in any way advances corporate or govt accountability, you've got rocks for brains.

 

[dmcowen674]

400 Economists, including 5 Nobel laureates, endorse Romney

Because they are part of the 1%

Of course they want to save their own asses.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The consumer protection agency was created by Dems, and is under constant attack by Repubs. While it's not revolutionary in an accountability sense it's a lot more than nothing.

When there's no getting even conventional thinking past Repubs, what use is it to propose anything more radical, other than to have yourself labeled as radical?

They have limited answers to any problem- tax cuts, deregulation & vouchers. Plus voter ID & the Patriot act. If you think that in any way advances corporate or govt accountability, you've got rocks for brains.

And that stopped the push for Obamacare? Hardly. Not only that but they pushed it all the way to the SCOTUS and came away worth more than they dreamed, a punishment tax.

It's a matter of self limited options and lack of political will. Polls have consistently shown that jobs were most important to the majority but correcting fundamental flaws? Hardly.

If the Dems won't offer solutions because they don't want to fight for them then it's worse than I suggested.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

So what do the other 14,600 economists have to say?

Still waiting...

Still waiting...

:hmm:

Already addressed.

There is not enough information in his "economic plan" for it to be accurately evaluated, therefore why would more than a few folks devote their precious academic time to evaluating it?

He will give us the details "later".

Also, economics is a science. Dont confuse policy with science.

 

[monovillage]

Already addressed.

There is not enough information in his "economic plan" for it to be accurately evaluated, therefore why would more than a few folks devote their precious academic time to evaluating it?

He will give us the details "later".

Also, economics is a science. Dont confuse policy with science.

Uhh yeah, we have social science, political science, christian science and economic science.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262473/economics-science-jim-manzi

 

[Jhhnn]

And that stopped the push for Obamacare? Hardly. Not only that but they pushed it all the way to the SCOTUS and came away worth more than they dreamed, a punishment tax.

It's a matter of self limited options and lack of political will. Polls have consistently shown that jobs were most important to the majority but correcting fundamental flaws? Hardly.

If the Dems won't offer solutions because they don't want to fight for them then it's worse than I suggested.

Dodd-Frank Addresses fundamental flaws, if incompletely.

Obamacare required the defection of one Repub legislator, Olympia Snow, to get out of Committee. It likely would have been stronger & more progressive if they'd had more votes. That's even more pronounced since the midterms, where Repubs gained enough votes & the HOR, where they spend a great deal of time in pointless rounds of voting to repeal Obamacare.



http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/house-obamacare-repeal-thirty-third-times-the-charm/

They also like to threaten the full faith & credit of the govt with debt ceiling brinkmanship against a budget they voted to pass, along with proposals like the Ryan budget that have zero chance of passage.

Repubs have taken anybody & anything hostage to their desires, up to & including their own grandmothers.

Dems try to stay in the realm of the possible, and with current levels of Repub obstructionism, damned little of it is worth pursuing past making a point with the voters. They fought for the Disclose act, even though it didn't have a chance of a snowball in Hell. McConnell's dishonesty is illustrative-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/disclose-act-senate-campaign-spending_n_1678055.html

As if the Koch Bros & other bigtime rightwing funders can be intimidated by anything...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Certainly the Dems have done more than the reps. My frustration is that key issues are not pushed as hard as other things have been. Until the underpinnings of the economy, particularly related to employment issues are effectively repaired, we will remain stagnant or worse. There is a lack of urgency.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Uhh yeah, we have social science, political science, christian science and economic science.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262473/economics-science-jim-manzi

Was I trying to make a case for economics as a science? No that was not the point of my statement.

Go back to calling people libtards.

 

[Matt1970]

The thing about economists is that half of them will typically say that doing one thing will make things worse and the other half will say it will make things better. Most of them are probably just using the ole' magic 8-Ball.

 

[dmcowen674]

The thing about economists is that half of them will typically say that doing one thing will make things worse and the other half will say it will make things better. Most of them are probably just using the ole' magic 8-Ball.

I'm sure you support them.

They are like Meteorologists, they can be wrong at least half the time and still get paid.

 

[TheSiege]

T. D. Ameritrade's "Enlightened Investor" magazine (fall 2008 edition):

got a link to this, I can't find this anywhere

 

[mshan]

Unfortunately no, I don't.

I had to basically manually type that in from the copy I got in the mail. (I think I have thrown that copy out in garbage by now. I copied and pasted it from a forum entry I made during the 2008 presidential election cycle on these forums).

 

[shira]

There are approximately 15,000 economists in the US. I'm not surprised that 3% of them are Republicans.

If anything, the number is a bit too low to be impressive.

And I predict we'll soon see a longer list of economists who support Obama. I'm sure PJABBER will then agree that Obama is better than Romney.

 

[cybrsage]

And I predict we'll soon see a longer list of economists who support Obama. I'm sure PJABBER will then agree that Obama is better than Romney.

Yeah, because the economy has been doing smashingly well under his economic plan thus far.


EDIT: Wait, maybe you mean Chinese economists. I am sure they soundly approve of Obama's economic plans...

 

[cybrsage]

Certainly the Dems have done more than the reps. My frustration is that key issues are not pushed as hard as other things have been. Until the underpinnings of the economy, particularly related to employment issues are effectively repaired, we will remain stagnant or worse. There is a lack of urgency.

This. Dems (and dem supporters) universally attacked Bush for his lack of urgency in grabbing Osama when he said that one line about not constantly thinking about Osama, but they do not seem to care that Obama is fiddling while the US burns.

 

[alzan]

Yeah, because the economy has been doing smashingly well under his economic plan thus far.


EDIT: Wait, maybe you mean Chinese economists. I am sure they soundly approve of Obama's economic plans...

Because we all know that in a parallel universe near us McCain was elected in 2008 and in that parallel U.S. the economy has been growing at an annual rate of 2.8% or better, unemployment is below 6% and has been for sometime, the housing crisis has corrected itself and the banking industry has of it's own volition separated it's commercial and investment concerns.

 

[fantolay]

Why the fuck would anyone, even a Democrat, trust an economist that was poor?

Moron.

If your profession is "economist" chances are you ARE NOT raking in money.

Harvard Business School has trouble getting such an elite staff because when you are that knowledgeable about the economy, you could make more money as a banker instead of an economist.

Professors are economists. They aren't 1%. There are people who love studying economic theory who don't want to have a corporate lifestyle or wanted to start families. These are your economists. They know a LOT and they aren't RICH.

Sorry your life is so unsuccessful.

 

[monovillage]

Moron.

If your profession is "economist" chances are you ARE NOT raking in money.

Harvard Business School has trouble getting such an elite staff because when you are that knowledgeable about the economy, you could make more money as a banker instead of an economist.

Professors are economists. They aren't 1%. There are people who love studying economic theory who don't want to have a corporate lifestyle or wanted to start families. These are your economists. They know a LOT and they aren't RICH.

Sorry your life is so unsuccessful.

You prove my point that a poor professor teaches economics while an effective and expert economist makes money.

Now go fuck yourself moron.

Those who can, do; those who can't, teach.

Prov. People who are able to do something well can do that thing for a living, while people who are not able to do anything that well make a living by teaching. (Used to disparage teachers. From George Bernard Shaw's Man and Superman.) Bob: I'm so discouraged. My writing teacher told me my novel is hopeless. Jane: Don't listen to her, Bob. Remember: those who can, do; those who can't, teach.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Those+who+can,+do;+those+who+can't,+teach

 

[WHAMPOM]

I like to catch up on international and business news on Saturday mornings.

Today is a day to spend with some Dancing Goats espresso and, hold on... what's this???

Over 400 independent economists signed a statement at the website Economists for Romney in support of what they call the Republican presidential candidate's "bold economic plan for America?"

OMG! :awe:

Gary Becker, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, Edward Prescott, and Myron Scholes wub: Scholes!), all of them Nobel laureates, signed the statement?



But what about Obama, our Dear Leader out of the economic wilderness? Doesn't he deserve credit?

Uh oh, doesn't look like he does.

Looks like they are claiming his policies led to



But, I have read in this very forum that the future is so bright that we have to wear shades!



Don't SAY that! My buddies at ATPN wil go apoplectic! Uh, never mind, they are there already.



Holey Moley, Jiminy Crickets!

I wonder how many people at ATPN have seen this?

ECONOMISTS FOR ROMNEY

Statement In Support

We enthusiastically endorse Governor Mitt Romney’s economic plan to create jobs and restore economic growth while returning America to its tradition of economic freedom. The plan is based on proven principles: a more contained and less intrusive federal government, a greater reliance on the private sector, a broad expansion of opportunity without government favors for special interests, and respect for the rule of law including the decision-making authority of states and localities.

Applying these principles, Governor Romney would:

Reduce marginal tax rates on business and wage incomes and broaden the tax base to increase investment, jobs, and living standards.

End the exploding federal debt by controlling the growth of spending so federal spending does not exceed 20 percent of the economy.

Restructure regulation to end “too big to fail,” improve credit availability to entrepreneurs and small businesses, and increase regulatory accountability, and ensure that all regulations pass rigorous benefit-cost tests.

Improve our Social Security and Medicare programs by reducing their growth to sustainable levels, ensuring their viability over the long term, and protecting those in or near retirement.

Reform our healthcare system to harness market forces and thereby reduce costs and increase quality, empowering patients and doctors, rather than the federal bureaucracy.

Promote energy policies that increase domestic production, enlarge the use of all western hemisphere resources, encourage the use of new technologies, end wasteful subsidies, and rely more on market forces and less on government planners.

In stark contrast, President Obama has failed to advance policies that promote economic and job growth, focusing instead on increasing the size and scope of the federal government, which increases the debt, requires large tax increases, and burdens business with many new financial and health care regulations. The result is an anemic economic recovery and high unemployment. His future plans are to double down on the failed policies, which will only prolong slow growth and high unemployment.

President Obama has:

Relied on short-term “stimulus” programs, which provided little sustainable lift to the economy, and enacted and proposed significant tax increases for all Americans.

Offered no plan to reduce federal spending and stop the growth of the debt-to-GDP ratio.

Failed to propose Social Security reform and offered a Medicare proposal that relies on a panel of bureaucrats to set prices, quantities, and qualities of healthcare services.

Favored a large expansion of economic regulation across many sectors, with little regard for proper cost-benefit analysis and with a disturbing degree of favoritism toward special interests.

Enacted health care legislation that centralizes health care decisions and increases the power of the federal bureaucracy to impose one-size-fits-all solutions on patients and doctors, and creates greater incentives for waste.

Favored expansion of one-size-fits-all federal rulemaking, with an erosion of the ability of state and local governments to make decisions appropriate for their particular circumstances.

In sum, Governor Romney’s economic plan is far superior for creating economic growth and jobs than the actions and interventions President Obama has taken or plans to take in the future. This November, voters will make a fundamental choice between differing visions of America’s economic future.

Signed (affiliations listed for identification purposes only),

Gary Becker, Nobel laureate

Robert Lucas, Nobel laureate

Robert Mundell, Nobel laureate

Edward Prescott, Nobel laureate

Myron Scholes, Nobel laureate

READ THE ENTIRE LIST OF 400 HERE.

Please give a link for this "Romney Plan" 'cause I am pretty sure it does not exist.

 

[mshan]

got a link to this, I can't find this anywhere

Just saw this over at Daily Kos:

http://www.bluevirginia.us/diary/73...our-wallet-dems-outperform-republicans-by-far




** Obviously you won't have 40 years of continuous Democratic (or Republican) rule, so the sequential compounding above is only hypothetical and most likely very grossly exaggerates the actual pot of money you would end up with in reality ** (second chart, which looks like lump sum investing, and third chart, which is dollar cost averaging and probably what most people with 401k would relate to, then extrapolating cumulative return over time by using average annual return over 40 years of Republican rule (5.8% average annual return) vs. 40 years of Democratic rule (9.6% average annual return)

But it does seem to reinforce my impression above that 1) Republican cycles end up being massive boom and bust cycles where Wall Street (very savvy and active traders, employing judicious amounts of leverage and a healthy respect for risk (i. e. permanent loss of capital, not short term volatility in price), can get incredibly rich, while Main Street gets put in the poor house and pundits on tv say that buy and hold investing in a low cost, total market index fund (VTSMX) no longer works, even though that strategy requires a time horizon of decades, not a few years or even a decade) and that 2) significant negative returns at some point can seriously damage your accumulation of long-term wealth (i. e. the actual pot of money you are left with, not average annual returns or relative performance metrics):

 

[dank69]

We are Anonymous.
Anonymous is legion.
Anonymous does not forgive, Anonymous does not forget.
Anonymous can be horrible, senseless, uncaring monster.
Anonymous is still able to deliver.

If you don't forget, how can you not remember that deregulation is what caused the collapse in the first place? Yet here you are promoting an 'economic plan' that calls for deregulation. :thumbsup: