• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

So what do "most economists" think?

Status
Not open for further replies.

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,570
2
0
I'm curious. In a lot of debates here and elsewhere I keep getting this phrase thrown in my face by both sides, and when I ask for clarification of "most economists" they dodge the question.

So please, I'm honestly curious, since my views are apparently at odds in many ways with this vague plurality of economists; what do they think? And please, provide links. Because while I've read an article or several written by individual or small groups of economists, I logically have no idea what "most" of them think. Those of you spouting this must have read tens if not hundreds of articles and publications right?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
At least from my read of what most US economists are saying, Obama has not used the best and proven economic stimulus models he should of. In short, Obama close but no cigar.

As for the Romney plan, there is no real Romney plan other than warmed over GWB failed policies. Plus lots of rosy promises and pie in the sky fantasies.

As IMHO, the real problems we must address is our long standing and growing trade defecit. And our unsustainable and dehabilitating defense spending.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
True dat, Moonbeam and assuring you a place in economic history as the fifth poster on this thread.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
There's an experts' panel by The Initiative on Global Markets that serves as a wonderful proxy to what economists think about various issues. They ask very interesting questions, too.

An example: A cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut.
Wow. I didn't think I'd see much subscription to the validity of the Laffer curve. Guess I was mistaken.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,583
431
126
Wow. I didn't think I'd see much subscription to the validity of the Laffer curve. Guess I was mistaken.
I don't think they so much agree with the Laffer curve than they do that the U.S. is quickly becoming the G-10 nation with the highest corporate tax rates. I think my own nation of Canada will be at half your figure relatively soon.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
23,003
770
126
Wow. I didn't think I'd see much subscription to the validity of the Laffer curve. Guess I was mistaken.
Did you miss the 2nd question? Even the first isn't that much of a ringing endorsement. Based on the 2 answers, i'd give the laffer curve a 'd minus'
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,497
3
0
20 of the most rightwing economists wrote a letter to the UK government urging them to adopt austerity. After they realized their mistake, half of them reversed their position, 1 stayed course, and the rest were too cowardly to answer whether or not they'd recommend austerity again:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2264840&highlight=
Anyone who advocates austerity during a recession is no economist. There's no clearer defining line between scientist and shill. Except for maybe stance on the gold standard.
http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_cw1nNUYOXSAKwrq
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
Did you miss the 2nd question? Even the first isn't that much of a ringing endorsement. Based on the 2 answers, i'd give the laffer curve a 'd minus'
I don't think anyone disagrees with the premise of the laffer curve. I'd bet most economists agree that there's an optimum rate of taxation, and to increase or decrease rates beyond that crest would decrease revenues.

The debate, I'd imagine, exists over where that crest lies.
 
Last edited:

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
Economists are real good at telling you what happened, they just aren't worth a shit at telling you what will happen.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
23,003
770
126
I don't think anyone disagrees with the premise of the laffer curve. I'd bet most economists agree that there's an optimum rate of taxation, and to increase or decrease rates beyond that crest would decrease revenues.

The debate, I'd imagine, exists over where that crest lies.
Yes, i'm pretty sure most economists agree with the laffer curve at or near the 0 and 100% taxation rates. Other than that, the laffer curve is pretty damn useless.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Well, IMHO, that is the difference between economit and politicians.

As most modern mainstream economists recommend you stimulate the economy by governmental spending when times are bad, and when things improve as a result, the government should contract governmntal spending and pay back public debt. Most politicians advocate the same when times are bad, but when things get better they all stand four square for keep stimulating the economy and the hell with paying down the debt.

All in all the GOP wins the public image game while they outspend the democrats and then claim to be fiscal conservatives. Take ole Paul Ryan for example, Paul has been writing the US budget for two years, and thus far has not submitted doudle squt in spending cuts. And never will if Romney is elected. But ole Paul Ryan talks abour pie in the shy unreality and thats what counts.

As I long for yesteryear when we could drink bullshit undeluted and pure. As Ronald Reagan's budget director in stockman scremed to congress, spend spend spend, and what do you know our congress did as directed. Of course, the bullshit supply ran out as George H. Bush was elected Prez, as Bush was forced to say, read my lips, gotta raised taxes. As raising taxes on mainly the upper incomes allowed the US economy to greatly improve in the 8 years of Bush/Clinton.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY