A whole lot of confused economists
From the WSJ:
Almost half of the economists in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey decided against answering a question on which presidential candidate offers the most responsible fiscal policies. However, Sen. John McCain was the clear favorite of those who answered the question.
From Paul Krugman:
McCain offers the most responsible fiscal policies? Notice that this wasn’t about who you think will be most economically sound in general, or who you think would be better at fiscal management in practice — although even there, nothing in the Republican party’s past 30 years offers any reason to believe that it would be responsible in any way shape or form. But this question was about what the candidate is offering — and McCain’s proposals are, demonstrably, wildly irresponsible.
It's hard to imagine what those economists are thinking.
Yes, McCain is. His plan to sell off Hawaii to pay the interest on the loans to China is the best by far.
Isn't the WSJ owned by NewsCorp now? If so, that explains what those economists were thinking. They probably are employed by neocon thinktanks.
the economists are thinking of keeping their jobs.
they work for murdoch and ge
end of story
Jay Severin Has A Small Pen1s @ 1:
Brilliant.
BWAHAHAHHAA!
Responsible fiscal policy? Oh yeah, that must be the one that
engorges the corporations and screws the useless eater, you and me.
Did anyone see the economist guest writing in the NYT (Brian Caplan) that he backed the gas tax precisely because it would be ineffective but such a fake maneuver would undercut any movement toward any real reform -- and by the way we should help the oil companies earn even more because they suffered so much in the 1970s?
No one was have "Johnny Avarage" in mind. All they think is what's the best for all those fatcats up in the rafters of all the headquarters....
Well DUUUUUHHHHH.
Economist say it's a good thing when a major corporations lays off thousands.
And when boosh was first running up the deficit to pay for his war some were saying a deficit is not necessarily a bad thing.
The way I was taught economics is there is positive economics which is theory, but once they try to apply the theory it's called normative economics wherein they suggest solutions based on their personal values, in other words, an educated opinion, but not a statement of fact.
BaScOmBe against Bitter Elitist Bullshit @ 3:
Why wouldn't you simply just click on the link and read who they work for, Bascombe?
What's good for (those who run) Wall Street, is good for America.
Let's hear it for Tax Cuts!
To paraphrase monty python(and appolgies to monty python) "do you have some spam to go with your economic policy"
spam, spam ,spam ...........etc
McCain's economic policies never have made sense to me. Just by looking at the linked article we can see that McCain's tax reduction proposals will only lead to more inflation and/or Government borrowing as the Government, through its central bank will have no choice but to monetize (I.E. print more money) to offset those lost revenues. This is just a continuation of Bush's policies that have lead to nothing more than massive debts and I.O.U.s.
From what I gather, even if McCain implements his elimination of Government waste and and pork barrel spending the Government's own current overspending is so large that it wouldn't even make a dent. Besides, just who will decide what is wasteful Government spending and what is not? That is right, McCain will decide and if history is anything of a guide, when someone has power like that massive Government corruption can only follow and it will be McCain that ends up being the most corrupt.
The interesting tidbit is the part about how half the economists refused to answer the survey at all, making one wonder that those that did answer may have been acting irresponsibly thus the skewing of the results.
Perhaps a better way of phrasing it would be: A survey of irresponsible and politically motivated economists found McCain to have the most responsible fiscal policies.
Lets not forget that almost NO economists thought his gas tax holiday was a good idea.
I hear McCain is a muslim.
Hillary discusses nomination chances.
Sommers @ 14:
and a bad christian.
Also, Obama is is illegitimate half black great-great-great-grandson.
Sommers @ 14:
I hear he's black and eats babies.
xoites (Bitter before Country was Cool) defends Constitution @ 15:
That's good, XO. Downfall was a great movie but that may have been better.
Well, as Will Rogers once said "An economist's guess is liable to be as good as anybody else's." or as bad.
xoites (Bitter before Country was Cool) defends Constitution @ 15:
Haha..the second coming of Jimi Hendrix!
Those economists have lost their bearings.
More butter and guns, whoopeee!
The Starkist Principle
These economists don't want tuna with good taste, they want tuna that tastes good.
The WSJ surveyed the in-house economists of vulture capitalism enterprises. Lot of carrion out there these days courtesy of the economic policies of Dubya, and McCain seems most likely to insure a continuing supply of economic dead meat. So of course the vultures like McCain's policies.
And what's good for these economists' firms, is good for their pocket books, and probably their portfolios. The rest of us can get screwed -- excuse me -- continue getting screwed. It's an economy that may be lacking in good taste, but it sure tastes good to the eaters of carrion.
It’s hard to imagine what those economists are thinking
No it isn't. They are not thinking at all. They are voicing a partisan preference, not a policy one.
It's pretty simple what the economists of the Wall Street Journal are thinking:
Thought* If I suck up, I get to keep my job! Man, working for FOX in paper form kinda sucks. Well, at least I get to work, though I'm tired of our bosses singing "McCain is great... gives us BBQ"
10 years of a reich-wing majority left us with the US dollar at an all-time low, gas prices at an all time high, and a housing/credit crisis. Yeah, the reich-wing fiscal policies are amazing!
Sommers @ 14:
He doesn't wear a flag-pin all the time either. He also sucks at bowling and flying jets.
America's Hawaii is stolen property---King a queen of Hawaii were killed and countless Hawaiians.Read the history please!
America has no right to sell it--how about giving it back to the rightfull natives--China has enough problems with stolen lands-as Tibet?
...i guess they didn't catch that ditty about mccain saying he 'knew everything else happening in the world' but knew nothing about the economy. oh, and he doesn't know what a Sunni or a Shia is either. must have been a casual friday or maybe an econ. day off kind of thing. don't have to look at those stupid, downward numbers for a WHOLE day! YIPPEE!!!
The WSJ is still a reputable paper? I thought all its Journalists (note the capital J) quit.
Here is the quote from the WSJ story that I think sums it up:
“It’s the gas tax holiday, stupid,” said Paul Ashworth of Capital Economics, who chose Sen. Obama, the only candidate not to back the proposal to temporarily suspend the federal tax on gasoline. That move was widely reviled by economists, but doesn’t appear to have damaged Sen. McCain too much in the estimation of the respondents, despite the fact that he was the first one to put the proposal forth.
“The gas price break scheme is stupid,” said Mark Nielson of MacroEcon Global Advisors. “However we don’t trust Clinton. Obama is an unknown entity, but should he favor vast social programs he has championed as a young man we cannot assume he will be fiscally responsible.”
Got it? McCain has made bad proposals, but Obama is "an unknown quantity".
I use to have a high level of regard for Paul Krugman. But, his blind support for Hillary has completely soured me on him.
It’s hard to imagine what those economists are thinking
They are thinking about total lack of accountability and oversight.
Oh, and don't forget the get out of jail free cards.
Adam Franklin @ 2:
Probably the best explanation yet.
We only need to know two things:
All these assholes are destroying our country.
And we're letting them do it.
dennis @ 9:
nbc = general electric
wsj = murdoch
Yeah it's a real mystery, as my pay check stays the same and the price of goods go up and up, I just can't figure it out.
OH thank you magic chart!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/thornton/17chart2.gif
GAO-08-591R The Nation's Long-Term Fiscal Outlook: January 2008 Update
http://searching.gao.gov/cs.html?charset=iso-8859-1&url=http%3A//www.gao...
On the first page
The Long-Term Fiscal Challenge Looms, as the Baby Boom Generation Begins to Retire
Our updated simulations continue to illustrate that the long-term fiscal outlook is unsustainable. (See fig. 1.) Despite a 3-year decline in the unified budget deficit, the federal government still faces large and growing structural deficits driven primarily by rising health care costs and known demographic trends. Last month, a baby boomer claimed Social Security retirement benefits for the first time, and this cohort will be eligible for Medicare benefits in less than 3 years. According to the Social Security Administration nearly 80 million Americans will become eligible for Social Security retirement benefits over the next two decades—an average of more than 10,000 per day. Although Social Security is important because of its size, the real driver of the long-term fiscal outlook is health care spending. Medicare and Medicaid are both large and projected to continue growing rapidly in the future.
C'mon .. Big Money has made BIG MONEY off the Bush-Cheney train-wreck ..
And McCain promises more of the same ..
It's just the planet & the rest of us inhabitants who have suffered ..
The less we know about McCain, the better he looks.
Agent_M @ 21:
likely their schools are beholden to fatcat corporations for research and development.
surely, many are too cowardly to speak out against bullshit purported by the mighty wsj.
VegasRage @ 36:
they are also printing money at an alarming rate - equivalent to 28% inflation. the cpi increase for the last two months is about 18%. forget SocSec, it's going to get bad and be bad for a while and the media will blame it on Dems.
CoIntelPro against "Boiled Frogs" @ 40:
And after the failure sticks to the Democrats the Republicans get back in power, and we start all over again.
What we have is a failing state.
The various failures are symptoms of corruption.
The foundation of the corruption is dishonesty.
The system is so completely corrupt that collapse, total failure, might be the only way to "fix" it.
Was it St. Francis who said that suffering is the first grace?
Did the economists go to the Milton Friedman/Alan Greenspan/Ayn Rand school of Economics? That might be their problem.
Most neoclassical economists are right wing ideologues. They hug their discredited supply and demand curve price theory so tight that their eyes are closed to reality.
#42 is right. Especially Friedman and Greenspan are neoclassical economic true believers, i.e., right wingers. The supply and demand curve price theory's logic pushes them to the extreme right.
If those economists are working at the Wall Street Journal, they're thinking:
"I work for that rightwing loon, Rupert Murdoch now. I better assert the most batshit crazy thing I can come up with. Portraying Grandpa McSame as fiscally responsible ought to do it. The Dark Overlord will no doubt be pleased...."
These economists are just engaging in over-simplified thinking. They are thinking back to their ECON 101 indoctrination into conservative thought - probably one of Mankiw's textbooks. "Taxes cause dead weight loss" and "Free trade can make everyone better off." That's all they need to know to know that they will support a Republican candidate, no matter how irresponsible.
Our local paper this AM contained a letter to the editor in which the writer blames the Democrats for the sorry state of affairs that our country finds itself. The Democrats have controlled Congress for the last 1 1/2 years & have not given Bush any bills to sign which would improve our lot. Can this be an example of trying to pass the buck?
Aren't these economists cut from the same cloth as the talking heads the Pentagon employed? Any surprise there?
CoIntelPro against "Boiled Frogs" @ 35:
Yeah, so??? The WSJ went out and surveyed several economists. They didn't interview their own economists for the study.
Just the article linked to gives you the names of 7 or 8 economists and the firms they work for- most of them are money managers. Click on the link on that article and you can read further results of the survey and who they work for. This is really not all that hard, Bascy.
It’s hard to imagine what those economists are thinking.
No it is not hard to imagine at all IMO.
They are thinking that they will support their tribe of deceitful liars come hell, high water, and direct evidence that their team is completely incapable of acting in their own best interest.
They are not economists or journalists - they are propagandists who will pound the drums for their 'side' until their paymasters tell them to stop.
I don't think that is difficult to understand or imagine - they get paid very well to pretend they provide some sort of reason based commentary to the world when they are merely manufacturing an obfuscatory blizzard of lies to please their masters.
Republican rulers will always choose the path that lines their pockets. Screw the rest of us. The wealthy have gained so much power over the past 8 years I wonder if we will ever get our country back.
Occupying Iraq for another 100 years, and fomenting war between Israel and Iran to appease Christian Zionist John Hagee, is the basis of a fantastic fiscal policy. That stuff is going to be practically free.
Wall Street never wants what's good for it. This is typical.
Interesting thing about GE owning NBC and MSNBC is they were one of the major corporations who wanted to overthrow the democratic nation of the United States of America, and replace it with a fascist state nation back in 1933.
Ron Paul.
Here's an interesting perspective, which I think comes closer to the truth than most of what we hear these days...
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/83668/
The economists are just taught up in the GOP bs that they are responsible when it comes to the people's money just a myth that refuses to die.
Economists are clueless look at the mess we're in now
I think I can tell you exactly what those economists were thinking! They were thinking that in a mcluckycharms administration their stock in Halliburton Blackwater, etc., etc. would do very well.
No, it's not. They're thinking, "TAX CUTS -- more money for me."
Mugsy @ 31:
and social programs which help the average american are fiscally irresponsible.
dennis @ 49:
CoIntelPro against "Boiled Frogs" @ 40:
Well all I can say is that after 30 years of observing this phenomena, Democrats are still at the job site working their tails off while republicans are sitting on their arses typing their garbage into the WSJ.
Face it. Nobody but a republican/right winger would subscribe to WSJ, that Murdoch owned piece of toilet paper.
THEREFORE
It does not matter what it says. These guys are just trying to sell stock, and they have to phony it up to sell it, just like a broken down old car on their car lots.
Only one president has balanced the federal budget in the last 50 years.
That president is William Jefferson Clinton. It's a damn shame that he's
out of the picture now, but i'm sure Obama has a great SPEECH on
the subject.
Well jimminycrickets... THAT explains EVERYTHING about this shitty economy... All the so-called econ experts have just been freaking confused.... VIOLA! Mystery of the callapsing U.S. economy solved! taadaa! ....... Dismal science indeed.....JD
#43 and #44 are right. Right wing economists cling to a select number of theories that have been debunked by economists all over the world and they reject the larger consensus of modern economics. Sadly, the American public isn't knowledgeable enough to tell the difference. As one of my economics professors told us many times, the WSJ editorial board never saw a tax cut they didn't love. The newspaper is a soap box for the political views of CEO's and stock brokers. They know about as much about economics as the typical business major who only takes the required introductory economics courses. But I don't see how anyone with even a bachelor's in economics from an average liberal arts school wouldn't be able to debunk most of the views this paper puts forth.
I think they are considering buying some more stock in the military industrial complex. Just a hunch.
It’s hard to imagine that those economists are thinking
Thinking about keeping their jobs I imagine because academic freedom in the U.S. is about as coopted as freedom of the press?
Paul Krugman is not an economist.
He is a political hack.
Notice how almost all of the mainstream economists are DEAFENINGLY silent on why the country is in a recession? Most of the neo-con economic advisers, economic academics at major universities, and in the media, are saying that the reasons span everything from unscrupulous mortgage dealers, war, government, regulations, oil, food, globalism, not enough government intervention, too much government intervention, etc.
Nowhere are they stating what really caused the recession, i.e. the Federal Reserve bank creating money out of thin air thus artificially stimulating the economy and place it in an unsustainable state.
You guys are right. There IS a whole lot of confusion among economists. The reason is because almost every economist thinks the economy can have its price system and interest rate system messed around with by central planners and have a stable and growing economy. REAL economists over the last 200 years have been saying over and over again that the price system and interest rate system MUST NOT be altered, interfered with, or "optimized", because both of these systems are nothing but the monetary reflections of individual, VOLUNTARY human choices that millions and perhaps billions of people make in their daily lives. If the sum total of everyone's economic choices due to what they buy, what they save, where they save and invest, etc, results in an interest rate of 20%, then that's what the interest rate should be. If people buy x amount of goods, and save y amount of cash for the future, which results in a current price level of z dollars, then that's what the price level should be.
It is a gross mistake to assume that it is moral and wise, not to mention even possible, to have a small group of men sitting in their marble palaces, to decide what the prices should be of the things we buy, and what interest you pay on your home. Make no mistake, the interest you pay for your mortgage is not a result of the free choices of everyone in the country, it is the result of the Federal Reserve determining arbitrarily what THEY think the interest rate should be. What a croc!
Recessions are a MONETARY phenomenon. They are not a "supply" phenomenon. The only way that a whole economy can suffer is the same reason why an individual firm suffers. An individual firm suffers when its revenues are smaller than its costs. This principle applies to a socially financed economy as well. How is it possible that a whole economy could have smaller revenues than costs?
Many economists and many laymen assume that aggregate revenues are less than aggregate costs because people are not spending enough money. Thus the handy dandy government needs to step in and increase demand. This theory is fallacious, because it assumes that the only demand that exists is the demand for consumer goods. There is also a demand for capital goods and labor, which by the way is substantially larger than the demand for consumer goods. Capital goods industries are ALSO seeing a lacking in revenues, recessions are not ONLY a lacking in aggregate demand for consumer goods. There is a lacking in demand for ALL goods.
The reason there is a lacking in demand for all goods, consumer and capital, is because there was a previous INCREASE in demand for all goods. How can this be? By the Fed creating fiat money which increases aggregate demand in the economy, and is unsustainable.
Given the intentional and bogus stigma juxtaposed on any rational person supporting Ron Paul, it is no wonder so many economists refused to answer the question. The inverse of rational explains those who responded with McCain. - lex parsimoniae
Comments are closed on this entry