Nobel Prize gets it right

[Ferocious]

Also.

Dubya cut taxes and will be the first President since Hoover to oversee a loss of American jobs.


The fact of the matter is people who make blanket statements like that are talking out of their ass.

There are many many factors to consider.

 

[sandorski]

I thought this was going to be another Arafat Nobel Peace Prize thread.

 

[cwjerome]

The economic expansion in the 90s was set in the 80s. Things were good *in spite* of the tax increases... there are indeed many factors to consider, like the "peace dividend", a Republican congress, the tech boom, and many many others.

It's just plain foolish to think Bush's policies caused all the economic troubles. Things were already on the downward slide, then 9/11. Considering our unemployment is very very low, the GDP growth rate is very very respectable, interests rates are still low, and inflation is still low.... Things aren't all that bad. My biggest problem is the deficit... which is very fixable.

You're never going to talk people down on the economy when it contradicts people's realities. Things are basically good. I just posted this particular topic for balance... you'd think we're going into depression with the doom and gloomers around here. Obviously, there are many people who don't think that.

 

[0marTheZealot]

cwjerome, the dollar has lost a lot of ground against international currencies. We are borrowing a billion dollars+ a day to pay for everything. By all accounts I've read, we seem to be teetering on the edge of economic collapse.

Bush is not the problem and Kerry is not the solution. One person can't be faulted for a very intrakit (sp) and complex system.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
The idea that you can run $400 billion + deficits and keep the whole house of cards afloat? Now that is crazy.
Funny Clinton increased taxes and stimulated the economy through the 90's. Why? Because he ran a surplus!

Businesses run on BORROWED money. Low interest rates help more than low tax rates.

Look at GE GE balance sheet . GE has about $512 billion in debt. Each 1% change in interest rates affects it about $5 billion per year.

GE has earnings of about $20 billion before tax. GE income stmt. Pays tax of $4.3 billion or 21%. Cut GE's tax rate by 50% and it saves $2 billion per year.

Which do you think stimulates more jobs? A 1% cut in interest rates or a 50% tax reduction?

This guy may have gotten a Nobel but he doesn't seem to know sh!t about the economy outside the narrow scope of his research..

Wheres your nobel prize...I guess instead you get a

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
cwjerome, the dollar has lost a lot of ground against international currencies. We are borrowing a billion dollars+ a day to pay for everything. By all accounts I've read, we seem to be teetering on the edge of economic collapse.

Bush is not the problem and Kerry is not the solution. One person can't be faulted for a very intrakit (sp) and complex system.

If the dollar collapses, does that mean I'll end up paying back less actual moneys to CitiBank for my student loans?

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled

Originally posted by: ntdz


its not true. You can't take the last 4 years and say it doesnt work. If the tax cuts were never passed, there could be even less jobs now, you just don't know.

Of course one needs to take in to account the roughly 800,000 job increase for the government. These jobs didn't come from the tax cuts they came from GWB's overspending. Think what a hole Bush would be in now if he was a real conservative and not willing to run $400+ billion deficits.

Without the huge government job increase over 1.5 million jobs have disappeared on Bush's watch.

As you are continually reminded when studying economics.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Fortunately from Bush's perspective the bill for his overspending will fall to future years and future generations thus he and his buddies will not have to pay the bill.

I guess those 800000 make 500000 per year...wow...didn't know they paid that well.

Lets say instead they make 50000 per year...which is way on the high end, then its $40,000,000,000 which is no small dollar amount....but only 10%

 

[cwjerome]

I know Omar... we're on the edge of economic collapse, the world will be in ruins within 10 years because of oil depletion, and a huge asteroid will probably hit us before that anyway. Just like in the 80s when we were 3 seconds from a nuclear holocaust and those enormous, never-before-seen deficits were going to collapse our economy.

Dude, you have a serious case of "Malevolent Universe" syndrome.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Todd33
Most economist will tell you that that permanent tax cuts along with no decrease in spending is bad, really bad. Of course tax cuts stimulate the economy in the short run, you are essentially buying jobs with taxpayer money. Dumping a trillion dollars into the economy will do something, but it's not real growth.

BTW there are plenty, if not more, famous economist that support Kerry or are against Bush's plans,

A real economist would declare both candidates as morons.

Yes, because that's oh-so-productive. I'm guessing that's exactly what you did.

You got that right.

 

[chess9]

No link, eh Jerome?

Looks like it was a slow year for economics.

-Robert

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Ballsack
Here is another point of view shared by some other guys.

PHILADELPHIA - John Kerry won the endorsement of 10 Nobel Prize-winning economists Wednesday as he attacked President Bush for policies that he said have led to the creation of only low-paying jobs.

...

The endorsement, in the form of an open letter American voters, was signed by George Akerlof and Daniel McFadden of the University of California at Berkeley, Kenneth Arrow and William Sharpe of Stanford University, Daniel Kahneman of Princeton University, Lawrence Klein of the University of Pennsylvania, Douglass North of Washington University, Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow of MIT and Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University.

Who to believe???

BALLSACK

Heyy, I remember Akerlof, Samuelson, and Stiglitz.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I know Omar... we're on the edge of economic collapse, the world will be in ruins within 10 years because of oil depletion, and a huge asteroid will probably hit us before that anyway. Just like in the 80s when we were 3 seconds from a nuclear holocaust and those enormous, never-before-seen deficits were going to collapse our economy.

Dude, you have a serious case of "Malevolent Universe" syndrome.

Or its quite possible that many problems we have today will manifest in dire situations in years to come.

Just because there wasn't a nuclear war with soviet russia doesn't mean we never came close. Thankfully with a few policy changes, cautious planning and blind luck, we are still here today.

Going down the road we are going seems to only lead to disaster. How is a devalued dollar good for our economy? What do you think of the fact that the dollar has no phsyical backing. Oil depletion is not a Y2K problem. It may not be end of the world scenario, but it may be the end of western civilization as we know it. Undoubtedly, some sort of industrialized society will emerge, but will it be one can we recognize?

The next few decades will be our generation's Great Event.

My view of the universe is analytical and logical.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I think this demonstrates that the economy is a function with zillions of variables. This demonstrates the similarity between economists and engineers. Both realize their mistakes once the reality doesn't match up with their model, and they have to reexamine their ideas to determine where the mistakes come from. Since economics is largely empirical, this takes time while engineers can make models based on physics. Since economics involves (and is even based on) human factors and responses, it may never result in accurate modeling. The only way to know for sure is to allow the tax cuts to continue and see what happens. Not suggesting this is the proper course of action, but I don't think even a Nobel prize-winning economist can declare them successful with 100% certainty.

Not sure if people just glossed over this one or not, but I found this to be a very well thought at post. Kudos CW.

 

[fornax]

One funny thing is that with the exception of a few, Nobel economics laureats have been proven wrong again and again and again (doesn't matter what they claimed). Economics is not a science by any stretch of imagination. If the Nobel committee stops giving prizes for economics and peace, they'll be taken way more seriously. Imagine: Henry Kissinger, Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres as peace prize winners -- don't you want to puke?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: fornax
One funny thing is that with the exception of a few, Nobel economics laureats have been proven wrong again and again and again (doesn't matter what they claimed). Economics is not a science by any stretch of imagination. If the Nobel committee stops giving prizes for economics and peace, they'll be taken way more seriously. Imagine: Henry Kissinger, Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres as peace prize winners -- don't you want to puke?

I don't think Hayek has been proven wrong, to my knowledge.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Edward Prescott, an ASU professor, shared the 2004 prize for economics. Here's some of his quotes from a recent interview:

"When you cut tax rates, employment always goes up."

"The idea that you can increase taxes and stimulate the economy is pretty damn stupid."

"...[most] all economists are for free trade."

He said Kerry's tax policies would discourage people and businesses, and he dismissed claims that outsourcing of jobs is damaging the economy. He also thought private savings accounts for SS was an excellent idea.

Interestingly, he thought the stock market is about 20% undervalued, in contrast to a 15% overvalued threshold when stocks peaked in March 2000. He said that assessment was based on the value of productive corporate assets adjusted for tax rates.

Bush's campaign released a letter signed by Prescott and 5 other economic Nobel laureates critical of Kerry's economic plans.

It economics the last bastion of reason for the Nobel org?

Overall, the markets were overvalued in 2000. 15% might be accurate, but some giants were WAY overvalued. You could still find bargains though, like REITs

As for hte markets being 20% undervalued rigt now, please turn in your Nobel Prize RIGHT NOW! I'm an investor and "undervalued" stocks simply don't exist.

"When you cut tax rates, employment always goes up." - as proven by GWB? Theory FAILED!

"The idea that you can increase taxes and stimulate the economy is pretty damn stupid." - I guess if you ignore the big picture, this is true from a theoretical standpoint standpoint anyways. I hate the PhDs I work with. They are useless as they are not experienced with the real world.

"...[most] all economists are for free trade." - Warren Buffet?

"Bush's campaign released a letter signed by Prescott and 5 other economic Nobel laureates critical of Kerry's economic plans." - YES! Theory. I love THEORY! Then again, Kerry has that Buffet guy as an advisor. These guys are probably critical of Schwartezneger's plans also if that's the case.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: ntdz
i agree with him. Obviously some people on this board don't and will show other econ professors backing Kerry. But did any of them win the nobel prize this year?

Hahahaha, Kerry has Warren Buffet. Are any of these professors considered the greatest investor of all time?

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Edward Prescott, an ASU professor, shared the 2004 prize for economics. Here's some of his quotes from a recent interview:

"When you cut tax rates, employment always goes up."

"The idea that you can increase taxes and stimulate the economy is pretty damn stupid."

"...[most] all economists are for free trade."

He said Kerry's tax policies would discourage people and businesses, and he dismissed claims that outsourcing of jobs is damaging the economy. He also thought private savings accounts for SS was an excellent idea.

Interestingly, he thought the stock market is about 20% undervalued, in contrast to a 15% overvalued threshold when stocks peaked in March 2000. He said that assessment was based on the value of productive corporate assets adjusted for tax rates.

Bush's campaign released a letter signed by Prescott and 5 other economic Nobel laureates critical of Kerry's economic plans.

It economics the last bastion of reason for the Nobel org?

I think that quite a bit of what he said was taken out of context.

first, cutting taxes does not cause new employment. The last 4 years have proven this true. An increase in demand leads to higher prices which caused suppy to increase as companies go for profits. To supply more you must produce more and to produce more you must employ more.

second, an increase in taxes can led to more employment. Does anyone remember talking about the great depression in US history? Taxes went up on the upper and middle class substantually and an enourmous number of jobs were created.

I also think that he has no idea about the purpose of SS (its insurance, not a retirement account) Second privatizing SS will greatly aggravate existing problems. First, as it is now, funds coming in are used to pay for current beneifts. The SS fund cannot afford to pay full benefits and allow for massive investments for long.

This guy obdviously has no idea what he's talking about.

"economics is a social science with the people removed" <---sums everythig else up i guess

its not true. You can't take the last 4 years and say it doesnt work. If the tax cuts were never passed, there could be even less jobs now, you just don't know.

If the tax cuts were never passed, there could be even more jobs now, you just don't know.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
The idea that you can run $400 billion + deficits and keep the whole house of cards afloat? Now that is crazy.
Funny Clinton increased taxes and stimulated the economy through the 90's. Why? Because he ran a surplus!

Businesses run on BORROWED money. Low interest rates help more than low tax rates.

Look at GE GE balance sheet . GE has about $512 billion in debt. Each 1% change in interest rates affects it about $5 billion per year.

GE has earnings of about $20 billion before tax. GE income stmt. Pays tax of $4.3 billion or 21%. Cut GE's tax rate by 50% and it saves $2 billion per year.

Which do you think stimulates more jobs? A 1% cut in interest rates or a 50% tax reduction?

This guy may have gotten a Nobel but he doesn't seem to know sh!t about the economy outside the narrow scope of his research..

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Cutting taxes causes new employment two major ways: The people have more money to spend creating demand and therefore securing jobs, and, businesses have more capital to reinvest in their company. Of course he's right. The last four years has proven nothing, except there's excellent evidence that the recession would have been deeper and longer if it weren't for tax cuts.

Want to comment on free trade while you are at it?

 

[element]

Did he happen to mention rising debt causes the dollar to devalue?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think they should give out the next Nobel for economics when they create a new category for best divination by auguring a sheep.