Economists Prefer Kerry

I'm surprised by how favorable the economists' opinions of both candidates are. Kerry promises to cut the deficit in half during his whole term in office. Assuming he keeps his promise, just how is the promised result good? Now if he had a plan to cut debt...

Why are you posting subversive threads like this? Bush's cut all taxes while increase spending plan is working. All these (the word is sticking in my throat) Economists obvously are partisan and don't know what they are talking about.

I wonder if the Cato institute (conservative think tank for the shut-ins) has ever studied the spending under Bush and compared it to other presidents? http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-07-03.html

Yep.

we should start a thread that's titled, people that don't have their heads up their ass prefer senator kerry, to president bush.

quote joe everyman:
"hell I found out that the president is leading us into an amoral abyss, instead of the terrorist free promised land, like he said"

and according to stuart simpleton:
"i just realized that it's not a tax cut at all, just an unsecured mortgage on our future, the next generation of americans. and they will have little means to pay for it, and will most likely crumple under the fiscal impossibilities of paying off trillions of dollars of deficits as well as taking care of the elderly that can no longer depend on a bankrupt social security system"

and finally from "outdoor joe" :
"look the cuyahoga's on fire again"!

all the smart people are beginning to awake from their slumber.
Kerry may not be the greatest alternative, but a message must be sent that if you screw the pooch you don't get to keep your job.

I'd care more about this if I had respect for economists as a group.

I remember studying that subject and continually thinking "These guys have no clue what they're doing, no wonder we're in the shape we're in..."

Yes and while your at it, kick those Harvard professors off the CEA -- what could they possibly know about economics?

Apparently some people never tried to get through Economics 101.
And others don't understand what a smiley means.

Yes but the REAL question is whether we start burning N. Gregory Mankiw's best-selling Economics textbooks now, or after the election?

Since when we do base our economic policy on what is contained in introductory economics textbooks? Next we'll be getting our tech policy from "Windows for Dummies".

You've really got a thing for Mankiw haven't you? Apparently you're involved in producing these textbooks. Do you deliver them or something? Because your grasp of economics comes across as really weak (By the way, I've got an honours degree in economics, just in case you want to start another pissing match).

Then you know Dr. Mankiw teaches at Harvard, that he is the president of the EAC, he is the biggest name in econ textbooks (that means professors like his books and adopt them [*snip*]), and that his textbooks are translated into a dozen different languages.[*snip*]

You would also know the Kerry is playing on the ignorance of the American public --- treating them like morons actually --- with his idiotic statements about his "healthcare solution", "losing jobs", Bush "causing" the budget deficit, and complaining that the minimum wage is too low out of one side of his mouth, but crying about outsourcing out of the other. Kerry's idiocy would flunk you out of an econ class.




[*snip*]


Edit: and if you don't like Mankiw, Baumol wasn't that far from him in policy.

Example:

These professors in giant's link mention the unemployment rate:

in 1996 5.5% was JUST DANDY for Clinton, but now, it essentially the same, and we are in a crisis?


Example:

The WSJ just had an article on "losing jobs". A quick look at the FACTS, and you see that we are not losing jobs, but the jobs of which they speak are moving to the smaller companys and into contract labor.


Why let Kerry treat you like idiots?

The Ivory Tower....economics and business professors prefer Kerry? Gee, whodda thunk it?

Talk to some real people in business and they'll you how clueless most business professors, and professors in general are. They live in fucking fantasy world. Tax cuts have been historically proven to stimulate the economy. If you can't accept that, then there is really no reason to discuss economic policy further.

I also want to apologize if I'm coming across as arrogant. I think [know] you are all intelligent people.

Let me follow up by asking a question:

What policies, exactly, are some of you folks taking issue with? Usually it boils down to this:

1. "Tax cuts for the rich:" Problem here is that they weren't just for the rich, and many poor folks got a major tax break or now pay no tax at all. The changes in depreciation laws help small businesses and familes. In my family, I was able to depreciate my new powerbook 100% in the first year. That's a $3,000 write off. I also pay lower marginal rates, as do millions of others. Rolling back the tax cuts on the rich won't do the trick anyway...it wouldn't bring enough revenue to pay for the rograms Kerry is proposing and balancve the budget.

2. "The tax cuts caused the deficits...it's just a loan:" Nonsense. The tax cuts do lower ervenue in the short term, but as we saw in the 1980's, economic growth is what drives revenue. Assuming that higher taxes garner higher revenue is one of the great misunderstandings of fiscal policy on the left.

3. "Bush is spending too much:" OK, now we can agree. But what do liberals want to do differently? I suppose we should cut the defense budget? Take back the 49% spending increase in education funding over the past 3 1/2 years? Will you bring out the old and tired $200 billion because of Iraq line? I don't see too many Dems standing up in the halls of democracy shouting for fiscal diiscipline, do you? We've had some serious challenges to our economy and fiscal house. Specifically, we needed to stimulate the economy during a recession (which we have), pay for direct costs associated with 9/11, absorb the economic residual impact of 9/11, pay for ongoing military options in the WOT, homeland security, etc. The deficit isn't even the highest it's been in terms of GDP. I agree we need cuts, but let's start by cutting the "sky is falling" routine.

4. "Lost jobs:" Basically, it's nonsense too. There are more people employed in the US today than when Bush took office. Two million more. The lsot jobs figure is abstract. As far as the new jobs that have been created paying less, that's an outright lie. Kerry lied through his teeth twice last night when he talked about jobs paying $13,000 and $9,000 less. It's an outright falsehood. When the Dems started their campaigns, it was "Bush lost 3,000,000 jobs." Then it was 2,000,000. then it was 1.6 million. Now they're syaing 500,000. Anyone see a pattern here? Seems to me that jobs are being created. The old "Bush is the first president to lose jobs since Hoover" line may make a good campaign speech one liner, but it doesn't have any real meaning when unemployment is low and there are more people working in the US than when Bush took office.

Kerry has presented no plan to change ANYTHING. "I will close the looholes that reward companies for taking jobs overseas". Bullshit. No you won't, John. You haven't explained how you'll do that or what the loopholes are, what your "tax credits" will be, or how you'll get them passed through the Republican Congress.

On a side note, what was most frightening to me about Kerry last night was his talk of his healthcare plan. Extremely scary. A non-government plan that is paid for by the government will push usage and premiums through the roof. While he's doing this, he plans to "fix" social security without changing benefits and without privatizing. That leaves one option, which is to raise payroll taxes. Clinton himself said there are only three ways to fix the system: Privatization, Raise Taxes, Reduce Benefits. We know which one Kerry is for by process of elimination,

You can't wait to get to that 'book burning' business huh?

I consider myself a libertarian, and I'm all for cutting taxes. However, tax cuts are no good if budget remains as it was and the state borrows the rest. Any debt incurred by the government is loot robbed from the future. With "excess money" in the budget (of course a government never has enough ) the first priority must be to pay off all debt. After that, tax cuts. I can't think of a reason short of survival of the state why government should ever borrow anything.

VERY funny pfflam

I did think you were being a bit strong, after all economics is a big, complicated subject with few black or whites. However, after reading SDW's posts I can see you are a paragon of even-handed reasonableness.

It's all a bit moot at the moment.

No country can sustain both the largest balance of trade defecit EVER and the largest budgetary deficit ever.

You currency is overvalued by a factor of christ knows what. You're worse off then Argentina, and I'm not an economist. Just a successful businessman.

What keeps it so high?

All the unexploited petrodollars, against which you can secure your debt.

But when the promise of growth ends, your debt becomes shaky, and your currency is FUCKED. The promise of growth is what makes debt possible. When Peak Oil happens, growth is no longer promise-able.

Did you know that for the last 3 years, the amount of money invested in oil exploration has exceeded the potential value of the finds?

Just thought I'd like to point it out.

SDW and Scott are both incredibly money centric. Their money. If they have more money the economy is good. If others are unsuccessful then they aren't smart enough or they don't work hard enough. Like Bill Gates they will fight tooth and nail for their money, at the expense of anyone else who gets in the way. They think that's what the US should do as well. They think that's what companies like Halliburton should do. They think that's what the Republican agenda should pursue. Selfish, selfish, selfish. But they don't realize that in the end this kind of selfishness causes huge damage to the economic health of the nation (and the world) -- as a conglomorate of multiple classes of wealth that to be more efficient should work to eachothers' advantage. They have studied microeconomics to the core, but have no idea about how macroeconomics work, and how such mismanagement of macroeceonomics can actually effect their own bottom line in the long run. They oppose all taxes but don't realize that the "borrow and spend" policies can have no possible result other than either higher taxes or national bankruptcy.

TALK ABOUT FANTASY WORLD!

I just love this anemic recovery we've had!


Sheesh!

You have been brainwashed by the spinmasters at GOP. Think of this is there 1 Mac still built in the U.S. ??? now ask yourself if apple has moved its manufactoring overseas then so have thousands of other U.S. companies, now ask yourself where did those high paying manufactoring jobs get replaced with? oh yeah Mcdonalds and lawn guys Fact is we are loosing our factories and with it good jobs. Bush says its good for America??? WTF? Lossing jobs and its tax base is good for America? Spin Spin Spin or you can just say Lies.

Maybe I've been brainwashed too, but I think on this issue it's the Democrats who are living in the past.

Those "high-paying manufacturing jobs" are really just parts assembly lines and have become low paying Third World jobs. No amount of hand wringing or "closing tax loopholes" is going to bring them back.

Forcing companies to stay in un-competitive regions only means that American companies will get their hats handed to them in the global marketplace. That doesn't help America either.

Those who are counting on Kerry to stop or even slow Asian outsourcing will be sorely disappointed. The world has changed, deal with it.

Bush was asked a question on Jobs and gave an answer about education. He was accused of dodging the question, but I really don't think he was. He may not be the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, but he really does get this one.

The days when you worked for an assembly plant screwing and gluing parts together for forty years until retirement are over. To stay competitive, you need a job that adds real value to a product over its lifetime. You need to innovate your way out of a slump, as Apple is proving to the world today.

Your right proving it with Chineese made Macs and we also have given up on a playing field thats level,very pro american arent we? Perhaps by giving manufactors reasons to stay as Kerry wants we may have more of those better jobs. Amazing! Ross Perot was right about the sucking sound from all those jobs going overseas. I blame both parties but we do have a republican President and congress who almost pat themself on the back for closing down our factories. Vote out the incumbant and its the republicans turn

I gotta agree with Frank777 on this, America is SCREWING herself with her education system, India is kicking America's ass in Math an science jobs. We can't get enough people in-country so we have to import them!! What the hell is that all about!? Barf -- the thing about manufacturing is the right, too. Automation has actually saved some jobs, but in the long run your going to have to provide a better product in order to compete. More brains, less brawn.

We need more math and science people, and we need to get ready to "catch the heat of the third-world man" as Mr. Peart put it.

I hear you, when I was in college in the 80's I was pals with a couple of Palestinians -- and in East Texas too [!], one of which was studying Nuclear Engineering and then returning to Iraq.

I always wonder what happened to those guys.