Scott Adams's Political Survey of Economists 939
Buffaloaf writes "Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, wanted to have unbiased information about which presidential candidate would be better for the economy, so he financed his own survey of 500 economists. He gives a bit more detail about the results in a CNN editorial, along with disclosure of his own biases and guesses as to the biases of the economists who responded."
Wait .... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now we actually turn to Scott Adams for actual unbiased information about economics? Or, at least an attempt to explain the biases up-front? That just hurts my head!! :-P
Where's the punch line?
But, seriously, good on Scott Adams for actually doing this on his own. I think had anyone else tried to do this, we'd all be screaming loudly that they were inherently biased and had an agenda.
No matter how it goes, Adams will get more material for the strips. ;-)
Cheers
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, kids: "The Dilbert Principle" can be both fun and scarily accurate.
Re:Wait .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, gas prices go up really fast on speculation. Or did anyone else in the US not notice how fast gas prices went up when Ike went through.
The oil/gas markets are changing more on what people think will happen then what actually does happen.
Re:Wait .... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's one thing to observe that the stock market is a bunch of skittish people. It's another thing to try to control current oil prices in any meaningful way by saying that in the future you'll have more production, and then rely on the skittish market to sort things out by lowering the price.
A half-day blip versus anything which fundamentally changes anything tangible about the market -- different things, no?
I think in the case of oil, speculation and all sorts of other factors would outweigh announcing new, future (hypothetical?) production capacity. But, unlike Scott Adams apparently, I'm no economist, so WTF do I know? ;-)
Cheers
Re:Wait .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wait .... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Do everything" only sounds like a strategy to people who don't have the foggiest idea of what to do.
The coastal reserves and ANWR might be a bridge towards alternative energy, but not any time in the next couple of decades, given the total amount of productive capacity worldwide.
At least based on what we believe to be true today. If it turns out everybody else is fibbing about the size of their reserves, we might find ourselves tapping these in a hurry. Which is still no excuse for pretending it's going to help with energy prices today, or that it has anything to do with the market bubble in energy prices over the last few years.
Re:Wait .... (Score:4, Insightful)
You, sir, seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
In any case, the value of oil is only going to go up. We should sit on it as long as we can.
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with gasoline as far as price goes is that it's more than 200% or more above where it was not too long ago. We can't increase the supply 200%.
WTF are you smoking? Percentage increase in market price is not in any way linearly related to shortfall in supply. Supply can sit at 99% of demand and prices can climb a lot more than 1% before leveling off. Conversely, if production is 105% of demand, prices can drop a hell of a lot more than 5% before it levels off. It's completely dependent on the shape of the demand curve.
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it perhaps possible that instead of someone's political leanings influencing their career choices, their career choices and accumulated knowledge have influenced their political leanings?
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also known as, "Truth has a well-known liberal bias."
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe academia itself is conducive to liberalism. The "real world" tends to drive people back towards conservatism
Education tends to lead people to liberalism, especially at colleges comprised of a more diverse student body beyond the local community or beyond state lines.
This is why there is a corrosive undercurrent of anti-educationism occasionally cropping up in conservative dialog. It is pretty much a cliche, the small town teenager goes off to college somewhere and the parents are horrified to see him come home with more liberal attitudes. People in the community see the neighbor's kid come back from college with more liberal attitudes. Conservative parents in the community start developing an attitude against sending their kids college, or at least to keep them in the local community college.
If you look at liberalism vs conservatism, there is exactly one overriding determining factor. The population of urban and suburban areas are liberal even in the Reddest of states, and in rural areas people are conservative even in the Bluest of states. Urban and suburban areas in Red of states vote Democrat, rural areas in Blue states vote Republican.
The cause is interaction and familiarity with people from different backgrounds and with diverse ideas. It leads to liberal social tolerance and acceptance of diversity. Experience that people of other races and religions and national origins and sexual orientations are not scary, Learning that the best way for everyone to get along is that you let them live how they wish to live and they let you live how you wish to live. A socially liberal live-and-let-live attitude. If two people want an interracial marriage, I'll let them live how they want and they'll let me live how I want. If two people want a gay marriage, I'll let them live how they want and they'll let me live how I want.
A larger college is like a mini-city bringing together diverse people from a wider area.
-
Re:Wait .... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I think that it's just a different breed of hypocrisy for most of the Americans who call themselves "liberal" to use the term. I agree that, in theory, what you are saying makes sense, regarding exposure to more perspectives causing a person to broaden his horizons.
In practice, though, it's just a different set of values that people try to force on one another. The Republicans and Democrats all want you to fit their respective molds. A true liberal doesn't ask you to fit any mold beyond "don't mess with my shit," but is too rare a beast to be found in any political discussion or election.
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe that the individuals right to property is very important, but I don't extend that to artificially protected entities such as corporations, and I don't believe that the right to that property inherently includes uses of it that impact others.
For example, I believe that you have the right to own a Hummer, but that doesn't give you the right to drive it on the public road. For that, you have to demonstrate that you are capable of driving a vehicle that is more likely to kill other people in an accident, and presents a hazard to navigation for other drivers, safely. Something akin to, but not as difficult to obtain as, a CDL.
Wow, that was a long rant. Anyway, Liberal != Libertarian. Live and let live is a philosophy, and there are people who would force it on you just like any other. At the end of the day, the use of the word Liberal you speak of comes from people who, in the main, were trying to distance themselves from those ideas. The people so labeled simply wound up up keeping the label.
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Insightful)
lupis42 kind of addressed your point in a roundabout way, but I would like to address it more directly.
The things you mentioned are not in the same category as the things the grandparent listed. Gay marriage, interracial marriage, women's right to have abortions, etc have little to no effect on other members of society.
On the other hand, gun ownership, oil drilling, etc have very real effects on others in society who were not involved with such decisions and activities.
In other words, you made a classic apples vs. oranges comparison.
Re:Wait .... (Score:4, Interesting)
I have to object to this notion. The student body at most universities is less diverse than most local communities. The students are generally the same age, listen to the same kind of music, and in large hold the same set of opinions and beliefs. The college community is a great insulator from the outside world (where the real "diversity" is).
I think the real problem that conservatives have with academia is the unrelenting push to make students conform to what the professors believe.
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Insightful)
For whatever reason, apparently "economist" is a field that attracts liberals.
Maybe that's why republicans think you can cut taxes and increase spending and everything will work out okay.
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Insightful)
all our republican Presidents since the 80s have been GOP, so what difference does it make?
the surprising bit is how much worse the republicans were when they were given the chance.
Not really, considering the jackass in chief; I don't recall anybody else so obviously stacking federal agencies based on dogma instead of competence or being so ineffective.
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Funny)
all our republican Presidents since the 80s have been GOP, so what difference does it make?
How observant of you. Did you also notice that all our Caucasian presidents have been white?
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Informative)
Not the way we do it. In the Keynesian model a country is supposed to only run a deficit during times of recession while during periods of economic prosperity a country is supposed to pay off any debt they have accrued and maybe save a little money for the next bust period. Our model goes more along the lines of running a deficit all the time.
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Informative)
This is a joke, right?
The only presidents since 1963 to have ever submitted balanced budgets to Congress are Johnson and Clinton. At no time since 1945 when Republicans have been in charge of both Congress and the White House have they ever reduced spending.
The vast majority of the national debt to date was accrued during the Presidencies of three men: Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, all Republicans. In Reagan's case, he was working with a Republican Senate for his first 6 years in office, and Bush had Republicans controlling both houses for 6 years as well.
The Bush II years have seen tax cut after tax cut that were, in theory, supposed to result in increased growth and therefore reduced deficit. Instead, he has posted record deficits year after year. And still, the fiction that large tax cuts will somehow reduce the deficit persists.
The idea that Democrats are the big spending party and Republicans are fiscally responsible is pure fiction, and it boggles the mind why people continue to believe it despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even the "big spending" LBJ was more fiscally responsible than the Republicans of the past 28 years.
If people would treat politics less like religion maybe they would make decisions based on actual historical data rather than what their party keeps telling them is the truth.
no, they were balanced on a yearly basis (Score:5, Informative)
The 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 budgets had total spending for the year lower than total income for the year, not based on any sort of future payoff. Those were the first surplus budgets since 1969's small surplus. The deficit returned as soon as Clinton left office, as all of Bush's budgets have been in deficit.
See the CBO data [cbo.gov], the past 15 years of which Wikipedia nicely graphs [wikipedia.org].
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of 7 years since WWII that had reduction in the overall debt, 5 were done under a Democratic president, and 5 were done under a Democratic house and congress. The last president to reduce the debt was Kennedy, under a Democratic house and congress.
Until Reagan, the trend of the debt as a % of gdp was downward. During his time and George H. Bush, the trend has been massively upwards. Bill Clinton stopped that trend and reversed it. For the first time since Reagan, in 2000 the debt as a % of gdp actually fell. With the induction of George W. Bush, the trend returned to Reagan trends of increase in debt as % of gdp.
Since the introduction of Reganomics into the Republican doctrine, the debt has increased 10,000%. A full third of that came about during the tenure of George W. Bush, during a time of a Republican Congress and Senate.
Science works, bitches!
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Informative)
Clinton never had a surplus. My numbers indicate that he wasn't even close. Despite that, the numbers are extremely favourable for democrats.
Since the end of WWII, Democrats have been in office for 26 years, Republicans 36.
Since the end of WWII, Democrats have increased the debt by 2407 inflation adjusted million dollars, Republicans 7994.
Since the end of WWII, Democrats have increased the size of the budget by 687 inflation adjusted million dollars, Republicans 1450.
Thus, adjusted for inflation, every year the Democrats were in office, they increased the budget by 26 million inflation adjusted dollars, and the debt by 92 million inflation adjusted dollars, every year they were in power.
The Republicans have increased the budget by 40 million inflation adjusted dollars, and the debt by 222 million inflation adjusted dollars, every year they were in power. My numbers are charitable in that they don't take the wars in Iraq and Afganistan into account.
Here are the calculations, done with data available commonly off the Internet. [file-pasta.com]
It's incredible to realise that the Republicans are incredibly fiscally irresponsible. They NEVER cut spending. They HATE cutting spending. They ALSO hate taxes. Basically, you're looking Republicans creating MORE government than Democrats, then NOT PAYING FOR IT.
Re:It actually does (Score:5, Insightful)
To put it simply, 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'.
I realize that you've acknowledged this, I just wanted it explicitly stated before I respond.
To be honest, the statism is, I would think, irrelevant. There hasn't been a small government candidate in 20 years, from either major party. The focus of the two parties is different, (Republicans want to protect us from others, and from evil, while Democrats want to protect us from ourselves, and from unpleasantness), but both parties are essentially in favor of a large powerful government, as long as it agrees with them.
The thing that tips economists is, I suspect, the same thing that tips most other analytical minds: the Republican party has been steadily tightening ties to the religious right. While religion is not uncommon among thinkers, secularism is more common, and evangelicalism is generally distrusted as too prescriptive and intolerant. Get rid of the Christian right, and the Republicans would probably regain a large chunk of independent to left leaning thinkers.
Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
The thing that tips economists is, I suspect, the same thing that tips most other analytical minds: the Republican party has been steadily tightening ties to the religious right. While religion is not uncommon among thinkers, secularism is more common, and evangelicalism is generally distrusted as too prescriptive and intolerant
nope, as a degreed economist, the thing which tips competent economists is the republican attachment to reaganomics.
reaganomics attacks the consumption side of the GDP equation, which also happens to be the largest portion.
It places implicit trust in agents who have no real liability, and are subject to moral hazard which republican economic policy-makers ignore.
It ignores the long-term consequences of allowing producers to put the squeeze on their labor (hint: you become unable to sell what you make, and... and this is a very relevant one today... people are financially unable to support a home purchase)
There are numerous other aspects of economic policy which incompetent politicians on both sides ignore: such as the fact that offshoring as a multiple-round game results in destruction of the middle class, but that's a discussion for another time.
Re:Unbridled Capitalism - Monopolies (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's play the monopoly game. You have a market monopoly, and I'll name a monopoly propped up by government. Last person to name a monopoly wins. I'll go first, so the game will be over sooner. Your local water company is a monopoly. Now you go. You'll name Microsoft sooner or later. In spite of its being propped up by copyright law, I'll give you that one out of pity. Now I'll go. Your local sewer company is also a monopoly. Now it's your turn again.
I'm waiting....
Nothing? I thought not.
--
Oh, and did you know that the government FORCED banks to make CRA loans? "CRAP" loans are more like it. Countrywide was very proud of how well they complied with the law -- how many CRA loans they made .... and where are they now?
Re:Unbridled Capitalism - Monopolies (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that were you to remove that structure, big competing companies would merge into monopolies, to the detriment of the economy, and history has demonstrated this, yeilding a legal structure to prevent that "bug" in the capitalist model.
In the 1930's, lots of banking regulations were put into place in response to the collapses of the Great Depression. A few years ago, we had major banking deregulation. Now we have the current mortgage crisis, because we let loose one of the bugs in the capitalist system -- people will take loans that they can pay in the short term but not in the long term, if you let them.
That doesn't mean capitalism is wrong or broken, it just means that capitalism only works with some amount of regulation; and some folks seem to forget that from time to time. Can there be too much regulation? Sure! But there can also be too little.
Re:Unbridled Capitalism - Monopolies (Score:5, Insightful)
It ignores the fact that most of the state-supported monopolies are in markets that would support natural monopolies if it weren't for government intervention.
While the implementation has been wrought with problems, "state-supported monopolies" exist to restrict the actions of what would naturally be a monopoly anyway.
So, in order to make your game less specious, let's change the requirements a bit. With the exceptions of patents (since they are outside the realm of this short discussion), you name a state-supported monopoly in a market that does not tend towards monopoly, and I'll name a state-supported monopoly in a market that does.
Ready... set... go.
[crickets]
The fact of the matter is that there is no perfect free market, and market inefficiencies tend towards monopoly. Even within the Austrian school of economic thought, it's required that correction be made for monopolies in order for models to work efficiently.
And I'll note that copyright law does not enforce monopoly. Copyrighted works are not commodity goods.
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Insightful)
88% of Democratic economists think Obama would be best, while 80% of Republican economists pick McCain
More likely Economists deal mostly in the realms of academia which contain a good percentage more liberals than conservatives, so the likelihood of being conservative and wanting to work with people who don't share your beliefs would seem to be fairly low.
Also one might conjecture that Conservatives just want to learn economic so they can make money, not just watch other people do it, haha. /stereotype
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Interesting)
Tell it to Milton Friedman.
Economists are (nearly) all in favor of free trade, which is generally considered to be conservative.
Some believe in the government using money to drive the economy by investing in local projects and social programs(a la Keynes), and this is pretty "liberal". Others believe in low taxes and small government, which is "conservative".
I think the real problem is that the true fiscal conservatives are all independents these days, so while it's clearly acceptable to be an economist and a democrat, it's not so acceptable to be an economist and a republican. If you add up the libertarians, independents, and republicans you come pretty close to a 50/50 split. That's pretty representative of the academic split between Keynes and Friedman these days.
If you're Keynesian, you believe that government spending and stimulus is a good thing (and are thus more inclined to the Dems), and if you're more inclined to Friedman (small government, low taxes, non-intervention), then you're pretty much forced to the Independents, since the Republicans are (for the last 20 years) irresponsible spenders, and that's hard to justify if you're an economist.
I think also academics and other intelligentsia types tend to skew democrat (since the dems don't call them elitist for doing all that thinking), so that will add to the bias as well.
By and large, I think it's pretty clear that the majority of economists are solidly pro-Obama...Even the independents went for Obama by more than 2 to 1 (according to the breakdown), and on the rest of the issues, the independents side with Obama on everything but taxes and international trade (I myself like Obama, but I think his stance on international trade sucks.)
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's so damn effective in america...I've seen a lot of people put forth opinions about why it's so effective, but the simple fact remains: smart people are viewed with suspicion. New ideas...Suspicious. Too much education...Lacking common sense.
I'm not one of those people who think that IQ trumps all; there are some very "dumb" smart people who I wouldn't want to see in the government in any form.
At the same time, people who are unwilling to listen to experts blow my mind. You may not agree, but if you don't listen to the joker who does it for a living, then how can you pretend to be able to make a good decision?
The gas tax thing was a great example: economists were practically unanimous about it being a bad idea (which is unusual), so Obama should have had this huge advantage in speaking about it..."I think this, and everyone who knows anything about it agrees with me, so I fucking ROCK!"
In a country that really values education and learning, that would have been a huge victory...Here it was a way in which his opponents could portray him as an out-of-touch smarty-pants.
I just can't believe it plays so well. In my mind, Obama's academic background is a good thing. I want a smart, thoughtful person in charge. I don't want another moron who can't comprehend cause and effect.
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Interesting)
From TFA (the 2nd one, Scott's blog):
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would agree with you in a general sense -- except that there is such a moral hazard problem with golden parachuting and other moral hazards (see Fannie and Freddie) that any observation of CEO responses is rampant with game theoretic problems.
Simply put, academics are paid to know about the economy. For doctorate level academics, it's not about their own personal stake -- their stake is in being as accurate as possible and knowing as much as they can.
CEOs (Score:5, Insightful)
CEOs are hired for who they know, not what they know. Their contacts lead to favourable contracts and favours from politicians. In other words, they are the private sector version of politicians. These are frat people and as long as their staff can keep them out of making stupid decisions, they are worth it to the stockholders.
It's the exceptional CEO that knows about stuff as well as knowing about people.
Re:Wait .... (Score:4, Insightful)
In the trenches? I think your average CEO resides in an ivory tower every bit as removed from reality as a career academic.
Similarly, I do not believe that the CEO's self interest is particularly aligned with that of the staff. Most people have mortgages and bills to pay and have to plan for a future which revolves around meeting those financial commitments. CEO's are grossly overpaid and are evaluated based on the most recent quarterly earnings. Executive compensation packages tend to reward short-term behaviour, reflecting the reality that most CEO's are free agents recruited from outside the organization to achieve some goal. Without a history within the organization, or any long-term commitment to it, it is in the CEO's best interest to game the system for maximum short-term advantage and if that doesn't work out, there is always the golden parachute to look forward to.
This behaviour is closely aligned with the interests of the largest shareholders who are not typically long-term investors. I'm not so sure that the short and long-term interests of the staff are taken into account, but that's fair enough. CEO's are accountable to the shareholders - not the staff.
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the punchline is that the media and the researchers are so compromised that coming to a relatively uncorrupted conclusion now requires significant time and deep pockets.
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, we turn to cartoonists for actual unbiased information when the press falls down on its job to do the same. This is the same reason that the most trusted face in news these days belongs to a comedian.
What makes me more confident in this than anything I might see on CNN is that a) he plainly states his personal bias and b) he shows his work. Neither happens in the mainstream media.
You get much better information from someone you know is biased than when their bias is hidden, even if your own biases don't match.
Re:Wait .... (Score:5, Interesting)
> You get much better information from someone you know is biased than when their bias is hidden, even if your own biases don't match.
Exactly. Which is why the MSM will continue to bleed until one of two things occur:
1. They admit their biases like newspapers of old did. I want to see "Wolf Blitzer (D)" on the screen. Then he would be freed from the transparent lie that he is objective and could get on with it. We as viewers could then accept what he does and where he is coming from when he is 'reporting.'
2. Really become objective. Primetime news with real journalism where you get the who what when why and how without mixing in commentary and bloviating. No talking points, no spin, no talking heads shouting, almost no horserace coverage. Real backgrounders on issues and where candidates have voted in the past, where they stand now and their explanation for any change.
Number two has less odds of occuring than monkeys flying from my butt so if the MSM plans on surviving it is option 1 or bust.
Interesting Read (Score:4, Interesting)
Are there any other stat sites like this out there? When my wife was in High School her poly-sci teacher handed out papers describing the different platforms and the candidates. Then took the students down to get registered. Does anyone do this anymore?
Re:Interesting Read (Score:5, Informative)
How about this (according to Michael Kinsley, Larry Bartels, etc.): Democratic presidents have consistently higher economic growth and consistently lower unemployment than Republican presidents. If you add in a time lag, you get the same result. If you eliminate the best and worst presidents, you get the same result. If you take a look at other economic indicators, you get the same result. There's just no way around it: Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations.
Unless you are already independently wealthy, you will do better under a Democratic administration than a Republican one. Plain and simple. And if you are independently wealthy, well then you probably don't really care about a GDP percentage here or there. Bottom line, if you are voting "with your feet" on the economy, a Democratic vote is the clear choice, according to historic performance.
Re:Interesting Read (Score:4, Insightful)
I didn't know the USA was a dictatorship. I thought we had a legislative branch which actually created legislation before sending it to the executive to sign. You might want to research who controlled Congress under various presidents before making your conclusions.
Re:Interesting Read (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Interesting Read (Score:5, Interesting)
Where are you getting your unemployment numbers from? Clinton started with high unemployment and ended with the lowest unemployment. Growth was consistent. Compare that with Bush where there was a clear increase in unemployment when he took office and even now hasn't recovered.
I won't make you take my word for it though. Link here [miseryindex.us]
All of this also coincides with salary decreases which are only now starting to recover although when adjusted for the fact that the dollar is worth 30% less now than it was four years ago and reality doesn't seem to reflect your statements. Can you please support it in some way? Carter and Reagan years were definitely not the era of responsible spending but Clinton left office with a balanced budget with a projected surplus so it is hard for anyone to take your argument seriously off hand.
Please enlighten me as I'm clearly missing some key information.
Re:Interesting Read (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting Read (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like asking a panel of computer scientists about what relational database to use.
No, it's like asking a panel of computer scientists about what relational database to use versus asking a room full of business majors what relational database to use. Yeah, there will be disagreements, conflicting advice, and no clear consensus. But I'd still rather get an opinion from people who make thier living studying the subject than from random talking heads that the news corps shovel at us everyday.
Re:Interesting Read (Score:5, Funny)
> It's not a black and white choice, but one of grays
That's right. Some people are trying to make this election revolve around racial issues, when in reality it should be about species. THEY'RE BOTH ALIENS! EVERYBODY PANIC!!!!
Re:Interesting Read (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Interesting Read (Score:4, Insightful)
Another way of looking at it would be: does it surprise anyone that many Republican economists would not want to respond to a survey if the facts don't support their political affiliations?
People don't like to put that kind of cognitive dissonance down on paper even though many people hold beliefs in their heads that don't connect with facts.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In the US, there are basically three effects from declaring a party affiliation: (1) you are permitted to vote in that party's primaries, (2) you receive targeted political junk mail, and (3) you show up in state-released statistics on how many registered voters there are for each party. Primary election rules vary by both party and state: in some states you don't even need to register with a party to vote in its primary, so in those states declaring a party is almost pointless.
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
That has to be one of the most thoroughly explained and analyzed surveys I've seen in a long time. The fact that he analyzed the leanings of the respondents and took that into account was really well done.
Now, can we also ask them who is really responsible for the current bank crisis (whether profit hungry execs, slimy people luring people into bad mortgages, people flipping houses and then wanting a bailout when burned, government policy...)?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All of the above.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
who is really responsible for the current bank crisis (whether profit hungry execs, slimy people luring people into bad mortgages, people flipping houses and then wanting a bailout when burned, government policy...)?
Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes. And probably a dozen other reasons as well.
Of course, a lot of the people flipping housing couldn't have done it without an easy to get loan. The people giving out bad loans wouldn't have done so without the support of profit hungry execs. The profit hungry execs never would have been able to allow the bad loans without the deregulation of the industry (something both right and left politicians have had a hand in at one time or another over the past 15 years). In theory, this cou
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
The Bush administration was pushing for *more* regulation of Fannie and Freddie since 2003, long before the housing bubble was on the radar.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091102841.html [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Who was in charge of Fannie Mae when they "misreported" $10.8 billion in 2006? Washington Times [washtimes.com]
For those too lazy to find out, consider that Obama, despite being in the Senate for only 2 years, is the #1 recipient of donations from FM/FM
2003 NY Times article (Score:3, Interesting)
It appears that the Bush administration did see a train wreck coming:
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae [nytimes.com]
So see why the free market couldn't correct earlier check this commentary out:
Financial Markets Are in a Mess [foxnews.com]
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Add to that, researching the 2005 bill that forced FM/FM to give out loans based on racial profiles instead of financial stability, and you'll have a good idea who to blame.
I'm gonna call bullshit unless you can back this up with a link or two including one pointing to the actual legislation.
Loans favoring people of a certain income class and demographic with interest rates that might not otherwise be available to them under conventional market proceedures, aren't particularly controversial, but *requiring* them to loan to a candidate who wouldn't qualify under normal market conditions would be.
However, anyone familiar knows that "normal market conditions" in 2005 included No Income, No Job, No Asset loans, which should make one *highly* skeptical about the assertion that congress twisted lender's arms.
Who was in charge of Fannie Mae when they "misreported" $10.8 billion in 2006?
The connection of Fannie Mae to Walter Mondale's campaign manager is supposed to be evidence of Democratic malfeasance here? It's been 20 years since Mondale ran. Focusing on Enron and its spectacular collapse that took down a colluding Big 5 accounting firm instead of FM's *understating* their earnings? I guess that's evidence of a massive media conspiracy... especially since the media DID report on problems with FM.
For those too lazy to find out, consider that Obama, despite being in the Senate for only 2 years is the #1 recipient of donations from FM/FM at $112,000.
A bit of further research reveals that this is out a total of a recent $390 million in lobbying dollars. So, Obama's the largest recipient... at .02% of FM donation dollars. I guess that means he's tight with FM, although he's also raised more money than anybody else from just about everybody.
"Fannie Mae Chairman Franklin Raines last week
That "last week" has got to be pre-2004, then, since that's when he was pushed out over the accounting issues.
called for continued efforts by Fannie Mae and mortgage lenders to reach out to those 'at the margins' of home ownership. Blacks, Hispanics and immigrants trying to buy homes would be a major focus of outreach, Raines said." Raines made no mention of assistance for the millions of white families who have difficulty purchasing home
Raines also made no mention of his support for the troops, ending Islamic Terrorism, and the state of Israel, which means he is against these things.
And yet
Re:Wow (Score:4, Informative)
The Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 (H.R. 1461/S. 190). Google is your friend. Use your friend. This gave the power to HUD to include "fair affirmative action", HUD then ordered Fannie Mae to increase it's percentage of high-risk mortgages. The Globe and Mail [theglobeandmail.com]
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not just any lender. They are government backed "corporations" that operate under restrictions passed by law. They are holding The People's money, taken by force at the end of a gun barrel (see definition of taxation.) As such, they must be much more risk averse than a private mortgage firm with investors who willingly take risks. The change to the law opened the floodgates for making bad loans on a "corporation" that just got investigated for making years of bad decisions and poor financial choices. Which brings us to...
The connection of Fannie Mae to Walter Mondale's campaign manager...
James Johnson was Walter Mondale's campaign manager. He is also Barack Obama's Campaign Advisor. Relevance is up to you...
That "last week" has got to be pre-2004, then...
Wow, if only I'd set off that part as being a quote from a news article, perhaps by putting it all in italics. Shame on me. Maybe this style will help.
ARTICLE QUOTATION FOLLOWS
Fanie's lobbying efforts paid off as liberal politicians such as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.T.) and Rep. William Clay (D-Mo.) worked to kill any real reform of Freddie and Fannie. The Washington Post reports: "In an internal memo in 2004, Fannie Mae executive Daniel H. Mudd affirmed what the company's critics had long contended: In the political arena, 'we always won' and 'we took no prisoners.'"
END OF ARTICLE QUOTATION
Oh, and Daniel Mudd was just the (is currently the transitional) CEO of Fannie Mae for the last six months. He'll be receiving a $5.64 million "retirement package" thanks to his friends in Washington. And Daniel Mudd has admitted that after 2005, they "stopped internally scrutinizing" their purchases of Alt-A loans and packages. That's a heck of an admission for a CEO of a "corporation" that's supposed to be about scrutinizing and packaging mortgage loans.
Raines also made no mention of...
Again, I must apologize for not setting off the article in italics or something. That was the reporter's comment. Please note that I just might have included this as a means of demonstrating the racial component of the push at Fannie Mae towards high risk loans. Raines being a major player in the Democratic party top brass might have had something to do with it as well. You might even want to use Google or another search engine to actually research the issue as I urged you to do in my initial message. Everything you complained about fell under the "if you're too lazy" block, which says more about you than about me.
How many are longtime party-members? (Score:5, Insightful)
My initial reaction was: There's far more Democratic economists than Republican ones. Perhaps their Democratic bias is because of their evaluation of who's better for the economy, and not the other way around?
I think probably the easiest way to prove this would be to show not just independents, but those who have switched from Republican to Democrat, or vice versa. Someone who's been Democratic for 50 years isn't likely to change their mind, and that could influence the economic evaluation.
However, someone who tends to think independently, even if they actually register with one party or another -- that is, someone who was recently the other party -- might provide a better indicator.
Then again, it's still impossible to tell. Maybe, long-term, Democrats have been better for the economy, and thus, economists tend to be long-time Democrats?
Re:How many are longtime party-members? (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe, long-term, Democrats have been better for the economy
There's certainly evidence [wikipedia.org] for that. [wikipedia.org]
To summarize:
Since 1933, Republican administrations have averaged 1.25% annual job growth, while Democrat administrations have averaged 3.25%. Even after removing FDR's terms the Democrats still average 2.9% annual growth.
Since 1978, Republican administrations have increased government spending by an average of 3% annually, while Democrat administrations have averaged 2.5%.
Since 1978, Republican administrations have increased the national debt by an average of 9.1% annually, while Democrat administrations have averaged 1%.
Since 1978, Republican administrations have increased the GDP by an average of 2.7% annually, while Democrat administrations have averaged 3.1%.
It's quite a testament to the GOP's marketing skill that the average American associates them with smaller government, stronger economic growth, and more jobs.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And not only that, they are now working with a legislature that is entirely run by Democrats. You know, the legislature that is the only body that can appropriate funds and vote on a budget? It doesn't matter who is in the White House, since all that person can do is propose a budget. Congress then has at it, and either writes their own, or modifies it. They say how much is spent, and they say
Obama favored, 59-31% (Score:5, Interesting)
The plain fact is that the economists surveyed think Obama would be better for the economy, by almost two-to-one. It's kind of sad how Adams had to dress the fact up by noting how many were Democrats vs. Republicans, essentially declaring it a tie:
Despite his own strong evidence that the economists were being objective -- their own income levels did not correlate to whether they thought the rich should be taxed -- he doesn't even tell us the plain fact until after he dresses it up.
His CNN writeup was an excuse to repeat three times that he would have his taxes raised by Obama. Well yeah, he makes zillions of dollars. No mention of Obama's plan to cut taxes, for almost everyone, by more than McCain's plan.
I look forward to his next survey of economists, in which he asks which is better economically, capitalism or communism, and then weights the results before revealing them. ("Not surprisingly, 88% of market-favoring economists think capitalism would be best, while 80% of socialist economists pick communism. Our economists favor capitalism on 11 of the top 13 issues, but keep in mind that" etc.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither candidate has uttered the words that would probably woo over a good portion of people - "cut the budget."
Fucking Cartoonist (Score:5, Informative)
A "fucking cartoonist"?
How many books [addall.com] have you written? Have you started your own food company [naturalcheffoods.com] yet?
Wealthy people don't get that way by being lazy, son.
Neither (Score:5, Insightful)
All you have left is to determine which system will lead to a faster or slower death, and decide which death is more preferable.
Re:Neither (Score:5, Insightful)
Scott Adams' Blog (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact that Adams has attached himself to a medium through which he distributes mockery as social commentary is really not surprising to me at all. I know smart people who are trying to make the world a better place by making positive things happen, so it frustrates me that Adams won't just drop all the grudges and stop acting so defensively. We need more smart people on the offense, starting awesome new projects and using their creativity to lift people up.
Tax bracket (Score:5, Interesting)
From the CNN article:
Moneywise, I can't support a candidate who promises to tax the bejeezus out of my bracket, ...
Then maybe you are in the wrong tax bracket. Try being in mine for a while. I think most people would prefer to be in a tax bracket that gets taxed like that and keep the rest, rather than where they are now.
Re:Tax bracket (Score:4, Insightful)
What the "tax the rich" crowd doesn't realize is that the tax bracket applies to -earnings-. You have to be -working-. Most ``rich'' (what I'd consider rich) folks don't really ``earn'' anything at all. For example, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and just about every other `rich' person who ``works'', makes exactly $100,000 per year. They'd actually benefit under most tax plans.
Warren Buffet jokes that he pays -less- taxes than his secretary!
Now, if you're "earning" >$200k a year (highest tax braket), you're not ``rich''---you're just well off (probably thanks to luck, brains and good education; in that order). You likely have a boss and work Monday through Friday just like the rest of us.
What the tax brackets do is create a "bump" in taxes around $200k mark. Taxes increase upto that point---and beyond it (once you learn to invest and not put cash into savings account as income), they drop.
Re:Tax bracket (Score:5, Insightful)
What the "tax the rich" crowd doesn't realize is that the tax bracket applies to -earnings-. You have to be -working-. Most ``rich'' (what I'd consider rich) folks don't really ``earn'' anything at all. For example, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and just about every other `rich' person who ``works'', makes exactly $100,000 per year. They'd actually benefit under most tax plans.
Warren Buffet jokes that he pays -less- taxes than his secretary!
Okay, let's put Warren Buffet's quote in context [timesonline.co.uk].
Buffett was saying that secretaries are being taxed at an unfairly high rate compared to the effective tax rates on very rich people (such as himself).
Regarding the comment about more than $200k per year not making you "rich", that varies widely by where you live. Someone in San Francisco making $200k per year may be just scraping by in a middle class existence, whereas the same income in west Texas might make you a land baron. This makes discussion of what "rich" means very confusing.
Re:Tax bracket (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to "How to ruin an economy 101: Start by taking away everything from those who know how to make and invest money, then give it to the worst investors you can."
Isn't that better than, "Take money away from those who don't know how to make it"? I mean, the people who know how to make money can go make more, right? Whereas if you take it from people who don't know how to make money, they'll remain destitute for life.
An upper class of hardworking geniuses that support the rest of their society seems to me to be a better thing than having a lower class of slaves.
And I speak as someone who's probably already in the upper class. Please, tax me more, and repair the roads/network infrastructure/health care in America. Because if I didn't have those things when I was clawing my way up, I'd have never made it this far.
Re:Tax bracket (Score:5, Insightful)
Then they're welcome to come up with ways to make that money. Once they've busted their asses in several jobs, risking hundreds of thousands of dollars on investments, and earned their first million, they can suddenely be taxed right back to where they started, because congress thinks they can spend 600,000 of that man's first generated million better than he can.
Taxed back to where they started? Are you crazy? Do you think someone who only makes $400,000 isn't taxed at all?
Hint: Even in our progressive tax system, you do not end up with less money overall by earning more money but then paying more in taxes. You will end up with more money. How is that taking everything? Oh right it isn't. This is just the usual "taxes provide a disincentive to earn more money" canard, or should I say retard.
Subjective results (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's really cool that Scott Adams paid for this survey. And I was impressed by his analysis of the results. But I am not sure how much value there is in the result.
Democrat economists favored Obama (88%!). Republican economists favored McCain (80%!). Independents (who, as Scott Adams pointed out, are mostly in academia) favored Obama (just barely: 46% Obama to 39% McCain). Not really earthshaking results nor unexpected. Maybe he should ask for his money back.
Really, the biggest surprise to me is how solidly the recommendations aligned with the political party of the recommending economist. It makes me wonder whether economics is really that subjective, or whether ideology is trumping objectivity here.
I was amused that Scott Adams described himself as "Libertarian, minus the crazy stuff". I could say the same. My own recommendation: vote for gridlock. Since Congress is in the hands of the Democrats, vote for the Republican candidate, just to put some quicksand under the wheels of big government.
My favorite quote:
Heh. Scott Adams is a comedic genius. Actually, I think we can shorten that to: Scott Adams is a genius.
steveha
No surprises (Score:4, Informative)
Wow, the economists have joined the parties that they think are best for the economy. Shocking.
Not even this is surprising:
In January 2009, the total national debt will be the same, regardless of whoever is going to become president. This is a massive drag on the economy.
Furthermore, this is just a president, not a central committee chairman. The president obviously has some power, but he's definitely in second place. The part of government that has the most influence over the economy (congress), isn't getting nearly as much media coverage for their elections, as the president is. The next truly economy-related election is in two years, not in two months.
Adams on CEO (Score:3, Insightful)
The Scott Adams commentary contained this provocative remark:
Some of you will wonder how reliable a bunch of academics are when it comes to answering real life questions about the economy. You might prefer to know what CEOs think. But remember that CEOs are paid to be advocates for their stockholders, not advocates for voters. Asking CEOs what should be done about the economy is like asking criminals for legal advice.
Presumably criminals stand to benefit by giving others bad legal advice, and as criminals they could not be trusted to forgo personal gain for the principle of honesty. Likewise, CEOs stand to benefit by harming the economy and could not be trusted to forgo personal gain for the sake of improving the economic welfare of the nation.
Do CEOs benefit from a bad economy? "Yay! business is looking up because the economy is failing!". It is a more daft than deft analogy.
Unselfish, or not? (Score:3, Insightful)
From TFA:
Man, that's sad. He's making more than 200K (must be, or the O-man's plan has him in line for a tax cut), and *that's* his whole basis for voting? No cocern for society as a whole huh? Just your own personal pocketbook. I guess in that case the %98 of the rest of us should blindly vote Democratic, as we'll get a tax cut.
Let's not even mention the fact that he's not actually going to *raise* taxes on the rich, so much as rescind the huge "temporary" emergency tax cut Bush pushed through in his first term as an "economic stimulus package". That economic experiment sure worked well, didn't it?
Obligatory (Score:4, Funny)
I dont understand you americans. really. (Score:5, Insightful)
Moneywise, I can't support a candidate who promises to tax the bejeezus out of my bracket, give the windfall to a bunch of clowns with a 14 percent approval rating (Congress), and hope they spend it wisely. Unfortunately, the alternative to the guy who promises to pillage my wallet is a lukewarm cadaver. I'm in trouble either way.
if you check out those sentences, you may think that the republican administrations up to date, especially this administration, havent taken cash out of his pocket. and democrats, supposedly, take cash from your pocket, and give it to senate to waste. how simple. but also, how stupid.
...
yea republican administration didnt increase your taxes, up until now. but what did they do instead ? they used EXISTING public funds and wasted them on foreign wars and crap, totaling to $400bn/year for iraq, ALONE.
spent money, has to come from somewhere, right ? sure. and since these republicans are the puppet of big business, and they cant tax them, and since they wont tax you also, what can they do ? they used existing public funds from ELSEWHERE. juggled all kinds of government funds, issued bonds, sold bonds to chinese and so on.
i dont think there is anybody among you who would be stupid as to not understand that these spendings, these debts are going to be paid from somewhere.
from where ?
not the little green men, for sure. YOU are going to pay it. EVEN IF it doesnt come directly from your pocket in the form of taxes.
and here you have, a financial disaster, in which you not only sank yourselves, but dragged ENTIRE world down with you. what a shame, what ignorance, what foolishness. EVERYone of us on the globe, suffering because of this.
'deregulation' 'hands off business'
economy is another SOCIAL aspect of human life. as with every social aspect of life, because there are more than one person involved, there are going to be opportunists, schemers, bastards, criminals, fraudsters, every kind of people.
if you do "hands off", that basically means that all these ill willed elements of the society will be free to roam as they like in that field of life.
and so it did happen. some smartyboys came up with a scheme to make quick bucks over another segment of society, painted some high risk loans so nicely that low income people were lured to take them, and then also sold bonds tied to these high risk loans not only nationally but internationally. and, because 'hands off business', they werent regulated, overseen, controlled and checked if they were attempting anything fishy.
way to go.
now we are all headed towards the bottom of the trash can, globally.
and yet, a person like scott adams, STILL talks about 'take money from my pocket with taxes'.
HELLOOOOOOOO !!!?!?!?! with this goddamn global crisis, more cash is going to get out of your pocket than democrats can EVER tax out of you !!!
holy cow.
people, it happened. it should NOT have happened, but it happened.
so please, this time, be smart, think long term, and elect someone who is not as idiot as to still say "deregulation" every other sentence.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Dilbert Died in the Bubble Pop (Score:4, Interesting)
Scott Adams is an idiot. He had a funny take on the other idiots who surrounded him in his PacTel cubicle in the 1990s, but that's just the idiot leading the idiots. Read his "Dogbert management books" for business insights that aren't even funny, in ways that show he actually knows as little about business management as the idiots he mocks.
Here's Adams' latest demonstration of his idiocy, in this stupid (and not funny) editorial:
The surge escalation has failed. Of course throwing tens of thousands of new US troops at a civil war will succeed in beating back the enemies, making them less likely to try attacks than when the US military was spread too thin to intimidate. No one questions whether our military is good at killing and intimidating enemies, when Washington (run by Bush and McCain's Republican Party) isn't keeping them too weak to do the job.
But the surge's job wasn't just to drop the killing. That was a means to an end, to create a political opportunity that was totally squandered. The Iraqi government is a farce that hasn't governed anything, even when we give it a break in the action during which it can concentrate on governing. It has failed. And since the purpose of the surge escalation has failed, the surge has failed. Anyone saying any different just thinks that the purpose of war is to kill. It's not, and those people have lost the Iraq War since they started it.
But hey, if the surge worked, then we won. Let's get the hell out of there already. Not stay the "100 years, maybe forever" that McCain thinks equals victory. If we've got to keep troops there, we're losing. Only getting out of there is any real measure of victory.
Yeah, and then he totally ignored that most economists are Democrats. Because people who understand the economy vote for Democrats. Even among Republican economists, more Republicans support Obama than Democrat economists for McCain. That speaks much more than what Adams' single datapoint survey says.
Of course, that is what every single American (who isn't crazy) says about their political bias.
And there we have the basic evidence of Scott Adams idiocy. Or rather, his lying. Obama might be raising Adams' taxes, if he makes over $250,000 a year. He's almost certainly not going to raise yours. You can see for yourself with the Obama Tax Cut Web Calculator [alchemytoday.com], which takes 15 seconds and 3 status facts about you to show you the dollar amount of your Obama tax cut.
Adams is a rich guy who makes his money satirizing incompetents running big orgs. His pocketbook is threatened by Obama because he's made so much more money than most people, benefited so much more than most people, from the exact kinds of idiots he needs in power for him to sell more books and cartoons. He's as scared of McCain as he is of Obama, because though he believes McCain won't tax him (but the country would fall apart, an expensive proposition even for a cartoonist who has to live in it), because McCain is boring. Which means he won't be a good c
Another study (Score:4, Interesting)
In Scott Adams's survey of members of the American Economic Association [wikipedia.org], he found 48% Democrats, 17% Republicans, 27% Independents, 3% Libertarian, and 5% Other or not registered. However, in this working paper [harvard.edu] by Gross and Simmons (at Harvard and GMU, respectively), surveying economists working in academia, they find 34.3% Democrats, 37.1% Independents, and 28.6% Republicans.
Anyone have ideas on what's up with the disparities in the statistics? The only explanation I can think of is that the AEA includes economists in the public sector, where (as one might expect) folks tend to favor government intervention in the economy.
(By the way, for anyone curious, the stats for academia as a whole are 45.2% Democrats, 38.9% Independents, and 15.9% Republicans. In English it's 51.0/47.1/2.0, in computer science it's 32.3/58.1/9.7, and in electrical engineering it's 13.2/55.3/31.6)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The majority of economists are Democrats? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a surprise. Maybe enomomists make less money than I thought.
or economists have the necessary education to see the big picture and vote for policies that increase the health of the entire economy rather then fatten their personal wallets in the short term.
Enlightened self interest can be a wonderful thing.
Re:The majority of economists are Democrats? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The majority of economists are Democrats? (Score:5, Funny)
The accountant takes the bet, kneels down and eats the crap. The economist pays him $20. They start walking again.
Around the next corner, they see another pile of dog crap. The accountant says, "I'll bet you $20 you won't eat *that*." The economist thinks about it, and wants his $20 back, so he kneels down and eats it. The accountant pays him.
They continue walking. About a block later the accountant says, "Hey, wait a minute. We've both eaten dog crap, and neither of us have any more money than when we started."
The economist says, "Yes - but between us we've generated $40 for the economy!"
Re:The majority of economists are Democrats? (Score:4, Insightful)
I heard a commercial on the radio once from the national association of podiatrists... they said that you should get your feet checked by a professional twice a year. They said that with a straight face. Feet are what they deal with, and it probably seems so important to them to keep your 'feet health' a priority. Similarly, economists probably have to believe that more is going on in the market than Adam Smith's invisible hand, if only to justify their own existence.
Re:The majority of economists are Democrats? (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny, I had Keynesian Economics taught, and always saw it aligning with Conservatism and Libertarianism more than Liberalism.
Re:The majority of economists are Democrats? (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, I had Keynesian Economics taught, and always saw it aligning with Conservatism and Libertarianism more than Liberalism.
That's probably because you, like most people, think of the caricature of Liberalism that has been painted by right-wing demagogues instead of trying to look at the policies of the various people in the Democratic party.
The strength of the Republican party is their ability to march in lock-step and deliver a consistent message, even if they don't actually do what they say, they always say the same thing--small government, less taxes, Christian values.
The weakness of the Democratic party is that they act like a herd of cats. Each has their own pet issues and sees little reason to support their party members pet issues. From southern conservative blue dog democrats, to west coast left-wing hippie crazies, to Midwestern democratic farm labor, to eastern blue collars and east coast blue bloods. They move in a lot of different directions at once and tend to get steamrolled by the Republican juggernaut.
This allows the Republicans to define "Liberals" however they want and they've managed to hijack the word and make it synonymous with a lot of straw man arguments of their own creation.
Re:The majority of economists are Democrats? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that we don't believe in markets, it's just that we know that the market isn't "free" enough to trust it to "do the right thing", hasn't been since the late 19th century. When you have a lot of wealth and power concentrated in the hands of a few, there is no free market because those in power control it to stifle competition etc.
It was different when you had a billion small to medium sized businesses effectively competiting, once you had robber barons and megacorps the free market was dead. That's when you need a very strong central government to keep the robber barons from running havok over everything.
Re:The majority of economists are Democrats? (Score:5, Funny)
(pssst, hey: this is not a good week to be slamming people for not "believing in markets". for that matter, next week doesn't look so good, either.)
Re:The majority of economists are Democrats? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't kid yourself. The one student of the austrian school of economics I'm aware of is pariah, shunned by both parties for his ridiculous ideas of lower taxes, lower spending, and smaller government.
Re:inconclusive (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not exactly inconclusive either. Obama was granted higher marks on everything except international trade which is not surprising, but still dramatically skews the results due to that issue's importance to the economy overall. One could argue that international trade has the lion's share of effect on the gdp, but I'm not convinced the economists were taking into account exports.
Obama's platform for international trade is to import less and export more. I would say that's effectively going to bolster our economy by boosting our gdp in the long run. But can he actually pull it off? The desired effect could take a few years to reach our gdp.
Re:Accountants (Score:4, Informative)
That's like saying you should ask burger flippers at McDonalds what the long-term growth strategy for the company should be.
Economics is fundamentally different from accounting, they are barely even related fields.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not Reassuring at All... (Score:5, Insightful)
But, assuming that Adams was unbiased in his selection of samples (I haven't read TFA), we can conclude that there are more democratic economists than republican. Maybe that alone tells us something about who's better at running the economy.
No real information about bias (Score:3, Insightful)
The results demonstrate that democratic economists lean left and republicans lean right.
That's actually not what it says. It says that among economists, those who believe Democrats are more likely to be good for the economy are likely to belong to that party and vote for that party's candidate, and those who believe Republicans are more likely to be good for the economy are likely to belong to that party and vote for that party's candidate. That's pretty rational behavior.
It also tells us a significant but
Re:Lag Time, Economics and Unintended Consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
Out of curiosity, how would you explain the multiple hundreds of billions of dollars of budget deficets by Reagen, Bush I, and Bush II, all 'fiscal conservative' Republicans, and the hundreds of billions of dollars of budget surpluses of Clinton, a 'tax and spend liberal?'
Honest question.
Re:Where are the car analogies? (Score:5, Funny)
I'll try to help out here, though I'm probably a poor substitute for BAG.
See, Republicans are Fords. And Democrats are Toyotas. And Scott Adams has surveyed a bunch of auto industry employees about whether the industry would do better with the CEo of Ford or the CEO of Toyota running the entire auto industry.
More Toyota employees respond to the survey than Ford employees. It turns out that most employees of Toyota say the CEO of Toyota would make the auto industry better; most employees of Ford say that the CEO of Ford would do a better job.
Wait, who am I kidding. Even the employees of Ford know that the top brass at Ford are idiots.
Let's give this another shot:
The economy is a Ford Explorer. The tires on the car (the Republican machine) all agree that the car won't go anywhere if they aren't in charge, even though they are bald and going flat. The transmission (the Democratic machine) thinks that only changing gears can save the car. The engine (the "captains of industry") knows it's really in charge, but lets the tires and transmission duke it out for symbolic control of the car. Palin is the rear spoiler and the neons, pretty but do nothing for performance. Biden is the horn, but more apt to annoy everyone when he makes noise. Nader is the cataliytic converter, and Ron Paul is the loose lugnuts on the tires.
But it doesn't matter, because there are Toyotas and Hondas and Hyundais and Nissans and tons of other cars that are out-competing us... and the truth of the matter is that we need to scrap the Explorer.