Economists:8-18-04 Economists want Bush to Win

[dmcowen674]

No surprise here, the corrupt bastages.


8-18-2004 Economists give Bush slight edge

The firm expects a very narrow victory for Bush, based on analysis, intuition and experience.

For those who can't wait for November, here's an advance peek:

?Job creation.

?Iowa Electronic Markets.

?Consumer confidence.

?Global insight.

?Economy.com.
============================================

I left the huey and baloney after each bullet out and leave for the Elitists here to attempt to back up these so called "Economists".

 

[glenn1]

I don't see why economists would have a natural bias towards Bush or Republicans.

Then again, I don't see why what economists want as being a recommendation worth having, or who would be swayed by their endorsement. You might as well have TV weathermen on your side. To me, "economists for Bush" carries as much weight as "squeegee boys for Kerry."

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
No surprise here, the corrupt bastages.


8-18-2004 Economists give Bush slight edge

The firm expects a very narrow victory for Bush, based on analysis, intuition and experience.

For those who can't wait for November, here's an advance peek:

?Job creation.

?Iowa Electronic Markets.

?Consumer confidence.

?Global insight.

?Economy.com.
============================================

I left the huey and baloney after each bullet out and leave for the Elitists here to attempt to back up these so called "Economists".

Come on now Dave... If you are going to even HOPE to have any credibility in this forum you need to at least try to be somewhat consistent in your partisanship.. Have you forgotten THIS thread:


Scientist Thread

Hmm... So which is it Dave? Scientists who support Kerry are 'experts' but Economists who support Bush are 'so called "Economists"'. Why is that Dave? Why would experts in the field of science be considered credible sources of information, but experts in the field of economics NOT be experts? Surely you can explain that line of reasoning?

I sure hope Harvey will be in this thread to support it as well, since he made the following quotes:

No. The difference is, unlike Bush and some of those who post blindly on this forum to support him, it isn't unreasonable to assume that most of the "4,000 scientists, including 48 Nobel Prize winners", actually have functional minds capable of understanding complex issues.

Hmm... Think about that. These presumably brighter than average and highly accomplished citizens are standing in unison to make this public statement. Maybe they know something you don't. Maybe you should pay attention and learn something.

I mean, I can only HOPE Harvey will show up in support of these economists.. after all, they hopefully have 'functional minds capable of understanding complex issues' and are 'brighter than average and highly accomplished citizens'.. But.. I won't hold my breath waiting for him to arrive.

 

[zephyrprime]

That article does not say that economists want Bush to win. It only says that they predict that he will win using a number of economic indicators and prior history.

 

[Todd33]

These are not the economist picking the guy they want, they are using models to predict based on numbers about the economy. So, it has nothing to do with the scientist who are against Bush policies.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: Todd33
These are not the economist picking the guy they want, they are using models to predict based on numbers about the economy. So, it has nothing to do with the scientist who are against Bush policies.

But why does Dave dismiss their findings? And call them 'so called economists'? If anything, these 'experts' are using more than just their opinion like the scientists, yet Dave throws out their prediction.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Todd33
These are not the economist picking the guy they want, they are using models to predict based on numbers about the economy. So, it has nothing to do with the scientist who are against Bush policies.

But why does Dave dismiss their findings? And call them 'so called economists'? If anything, these 'experts' are using more than just their opinion like the scientists, yet Dave throws out their prediction.

"These are not the economist picking the guy they want, they are using models to predict based on numbers about the economy."

Ha, Models my butt, these guys are not the same as "Scientists", their so-called Models is flawed with their own corrupt bias that they input themselves. Show me an Economist that does double blind studies. They are clearly not the same. The Neocon Right Radicals are getting weaker and weaker in their arguments. I find this to be very surprising but I'll take it.

"But why does Dave dismiss their findings? And call them 'so called economists'? If anything, these 'experts' are using more than just their opinion like the scientists, yet Dave throws out their prediction."


Easy. Because it is obvious the so called "Economists" are Politically motivated and easily "bought out" by said Politicians.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Easy Dave - I'm an economist, or at least I'm halfway there - I may end up a lawyer instead

'Right-wing' economists believe in free markets as the main goal of society. Economists who understand calculus tend to realize that this needs a fair bit of tempering if it's ever to work, but either way there would be no reason to naturally prefer the current administration based on party lines.

And these are just indicators being looked at to try to pick the winner, nothing more. Don't worry, GB41 managed to lose an election after 'winning' a war (not that the outcome was ever in doubt). The indicators unquestionably suffer from 'small-sample' bias.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Todd33
These are not the economist picking the guy they want, they are using models to predict based on numbers about the economy. So, it has nothing to do with the scientist who are against Bush policies.

But why does Dave dismiss their findings? And call them 'so called economists'? If anything, these 'experts' are using more than just their opinion like the scientists, yet Dave throws out their prediction.

"These are not the economist picking the guy they want, they are using models to predict based on numbers about the economy."

Ha, Models my butt, these guys are not the same as "Scientists", their so-called Models is flawed with their own corrupt bias that they input themselves. Show me an Economist that does double blind studies. They are clearly not the same. The Neocon Right Radicals are getting weaker and weaker in their arguments. I find this to be very surprising but I'll take it.

"But why does Dave dismiss their findings? And call them 'so called economists'? If anything, these 'experts' are using more than just their opinion like the scientists, yet Dave throws out their prediction."


Easy. Because it is obvious the so called "Economists" are Politically motivated and easily "bought out" by said Politicians.

And scientists can't have biases? They don't have an interest in continuing to get money for their research? Come on Dave..

 

[Todd33]

Damn evil scientist, wanting money to do research to better human kind... Good thing the Christians know better.

Models are simple and most often wrong for things that not predictive or linear. They have been trying to model the stock market forever without success. It means nothings really.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Damn evil scientist, wanting money to do research to better human kind... Good thing the Christians know better.

Models are simple and most often wrong for things that not predictive or linear. They have been trying to model the stock market forever without success. It means nothings really.

You have a little too much faith in the purity of scientific motivations

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Crimson

And scientists can't have biases? They don't have an interest in continuing to get money for their research? Come on Dave..

So what does that have to do with the price of Tea in China???

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Easy Dave - I'm an economist, or at least I'm halfway there - I may end up a lawyer instead

'Right-wing' economists believe in free markets as the main goal of society. Economists who understand calculus tend to realize that this needs a fair bit of tempering if it's ever to work, but either way there would be no reason to naturally prefer the current administration based on party lines.

And these are just indicators being looked at to try to pick the winner, nothing more. Don't worry, GB41 managed to lose an election after 'winning' a war (not that the outcome was ever in doubt). The indicators unquestionably suffer from 'small-sample' bias.

"Easy Dave - I'm an economist"

Cool

Could there be such a thing as an unbiased Economist??? Such as the example I gave of double blind study etc? Right now there is no evidence of any unbiased Economists, they seem to be as bad as Journalists.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Easy Dave - I'm an economist, or at least I'm halfway there - I may end up a lawyer instead

'Right-wing' economists believe in free markets as the main goal of society. Economists who understand calculus tend to realize that this needs a fair bit of tempering if it's ever to work, but either way there would be no reason to naturally prefer the current administration based on party lines.

And these are just indicators being looked at to try to pick the winner, nothing more. Don't worry, GB41 managed to lose an election after 'winning' a war (not that the outcome was ever in doubt). The indicators unquestionably suffer from 'small-sample' bias.

"Easy Dave - I'm an economist"

Cool

Could there be such a thing as an unbiased Economist??? Such as the example I gave of double blind study etc? Right now there is no evidence of any unbiased Economists, they seem to be as bad as Journalists.

By and large, economists swing fiscally to the right; but NOT towards the current neoconservative agenda (we in Ontario know neonconservatism well; we lived through 8 years of it under Mike Harris). But personal bias does not necessarily reflect as professional bias (I would prefer that the cubs win the world series this year, but I'm not motivated to predict this outcome).

Bias is a subtle thing amongst real academics and professionals; it's a matter of 'what source do I take my raw data from', 'what small idiosyncracies might I introduce by the way I frame a question', and more.

Also, the scientists are reporting quantitative results, and framing these results normatively. The economists are using quantitative results and using them to make predictions. There's a world of difference between the two. Frankly, my guess is that if Bush loses, it won't be simply on the strength or weakness of the economy, so the fact that economic indicators favour him slightly may not be very informative.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674


Ha, Models my butt, these guys are not the same as "Scientists", their so-called Models is flawed with their own corrupt bias that they input themselves. Show me an Economist that does double blind studies. They are clearly not the same. The Neocon Right Radicals are getting weaker and weaker in their arguments. I find this to be very surprising but I'll take it.

<Raises Hand and follows Gauss-Markov assumptions on a daily basis>

It seems you support economic models when they coincide with your agenda; you do not, however, accept the science when the conclusions are contrary to what you want to believe. Paul Krugman, much to your dismay, is not a real economist, Dave. Wake up and smell the 'heteroskedasticity'

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Easy Dave - I'm an economist, or at least I'm halfway there - I may end up a lawyer instead

'Right-wing' economists believe in free markets as the main goal of society. Economists who understand calculus tend to realize ...

At first, I was going to recommend that you check of www.doc.gov and look at some of our openings on the 'cool' site; but you might have a bit too much calculus for us lowly 'right-wing' economists, so law school might be a viable alternative

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
At first, I was going to recommend that you check of www.doc.gov and look at some of our openings on the 'cool' site; but you might have a bit too much calculus for us lowly 'right-wing' economists, so law school might be a viable alternative

Hahaha yeah I can see how calculus would be a big help in law school

I'm talking about the problems with assuming situations 'resolve' effectively when quantities are more or less locked at "1". Marginal economics works when all the 'complete convex sets' and 'infinite possible levels of consumption', 'complete set of markets with known prices', 'free agents (including freedom from coersion)' and such, fall into place, or are at least well-approximated. But there are a lot of real situations in the world where the concept of an equilibrium just doesn't have meaning. The difference between me, and a more right-wing/libertarian perspective is, I think, that I place more emphasis on the limits of what markets can accomplish, rather than the desirability of a complete system of markets which would, in a simulated world, function quite well, but suffer serious consequences in the real world. I still think markets are powerful and useful tools for real world use though!

I have a mix of beliefs, for me it's just a matter of understanding when markets are likely to yield undesirable outcomes. I'm actually pretty conservative when thinking fiscally, though I'm very 'liberal' on most social issues. The reason I end up arguing the 'left' side of a lot of economic topics here is that some of ATOT/ATPN's free-market advocates tend to overstate the real strength of their position, so I normally find it natural to push back!

And if I do end up in law, I promise not to chase ambulances

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
At first, I was going to recommend that you check of www.doc.gov and look at some of our openings on the 'cool' site; but you might have a bit too much calculus for us lowly 'right-wing' economists, so law school might be a viable alternative

Hahaha yeah I can see how calculus would be a big help in law school

I'm talking about the problems with assuming situations 'resolve' effectively when quantities are more or less locked at "1". Marginal economics works when all the 'complete convex sets' and 'infinite possible levels of consumption', 'complete set of markets with known prices', 'free agents (including freedom from coersion)' and such, fall into place, or are at least well-approximated. But there are a lot of real situations in the world where the concept of an equilibrium just doesn't have meaning. The difference between me, and a more right-wing/libertarian perspective is, I think, that I place more emphasis on the limits of what markets can accomplish, rather than the desirability of a complete system of markets which would, in a simulated world, function quite well, but suffer serious consequences in the real world. I still think markets are powerful and useful tools for real world use though!

I have a mix of beliefs, for me it's just a matter of understanding when markets are likely to yield undesirable outcomes. I'm actually pretty conservative when thinking fiscally, though I'm very 'liberal' on most social issues. The reason I end up arguing the 'left' side of a lot of economic topics here is that some of ATOT/ATPN's free-market advocates tend to overstate the real strength of their position, so I normally find it natural to push back!

And if I do end up in law, I promise not to chase ambulances

Ahh, a fellow Ontarioan mini-economist. I've found that even using geometry in the basic models of the economy can prove the efficiency of government interference in a lot of situations, even when most the basic assumptions hold true. I'm thinking of extenalities, public goods and less than perfect competition.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

I'm thinking of extenalities, public goods and less than perfect competition.

I'm thinking I like you style [and reasoning], sir

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Kibbo

I'm thinking of extenalities, public goods and less than perfect competition.

I'm thinking I like you style [and reasoning], sir

I usually like Kibbo's reasoning too.

What kind of work do you do at DOC, if you don't mind me asking?

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Kibbo

I'm thinking of extenalities, public goods and less than perfect competition.

I'm thinking I like you style [and reasoning], sir

I usually like Kibbo's reasoning too.

What kind of work do you do at DOC, if you don't mind me asking?

<removed and sending you a PM to avoid problems down the road>