10 Nobel economists endorse Kerry Experts criticize Bush's 'reckless and extreme course' Updated: 11:03 a.m. ET Aug. 25, 2004 PHILADELPHIA - John Kerry won the endorsement of 10 Nobel Prize-winning economists Wednesday as he attacked President Bush for policies that he said have led to the creation of only low-paying jobs. The Democratic presidential nominee released a letter from the economists saying the Bush administration had “embarked on a reckless and extreme course that endangers the long-term economic health of our nation.” They cited “poorly designed” tax cuts that instead of creating jobs have turned budget surpluses into enormous budget deficits, a “fiscal irresponsibility threatens the long-term economic security and prosperity of our nation.” The endorsement, in the form of an open letter American voters, was signed by George Akerlof and Daniel McFadden of the University of California at Berkeley, Kenneth Arrow and William Sharpe of Stanford University, Daniel Kahneman of Princeton University, Lawrence Klein of the University of Pennsylvania, Douglass North of Washington University, Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow of MIT and Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University. Kerry, in remarks prepared for an appearance in Philadelphia, called for “jobs that don’t just let you survive but let you get ahead. Jobs that let you pay your bills, send your kids to college, buy a house, save a little for retirement and go out to dinner or a movie every once in a while.” Now, he said, good jobs are being replaced “with ones that just don’t pay the bills,” — 1.8 million private sector jobs lost replaced by ones that pay $9,000 less and are more likely to be temporary less likely to offer health insurance. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5818277/
Not to belittle your article, but the other side can just as easily find economists who support Bush's policies, not to mention I googled the first name in the 10 Economists who hated Bush and the first one that came up was a Berkely Professor who won the prize for studying the effects of lemon cars on the economy. Not to say thats not an engaging topic and all, and I realize that very particular topics showcase an economist's expertise while going for the prize; its just that it seems a bit goofy to say the guy who studied the effects of lemon cars on the economy says you should vote for Kerry, I just don't know if that is a ringing endorsement... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2754283.stm Nobel economists back Bush Bush is eliminating tax on dividend payouts Three Nobel prize winning economists have stepped forward to support President George W Bush's tax cut package, in response to 10 who condemned it earlier this week. The National Taxpayers Union has sent a letter signed by 115 economists to the US Congress supporting the policy. Government can... hinder economic growth through excessive taxes... or unnecessary spending National Taxpayers Union The letter said that the "bold tax and budget agenda" would help end the "continued sluggishness in the American economy". Among the signatories were Nobel prize winners Milton Friedman, James Buchanan, and last year's winner, Vernon Smith. On Monday the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute placed an advertisement in the New York Times newspaper, signed by 400 economists, warning against Mr Bush's tax programme. Deficit blow-out debate "As a rule, government cannot create wealth or expand the economy," Wednesday's letter said. "Government can, however, hinder economic growth through excessive taxes, high marginal tax rates, overregulation, or unnecessary spending," it continued. "Accordingly, elected leaders should be working to adopt measures that curb or halt government policies that are hurting the economy." The centrepiece of Mr Bush's $674bn package was eliminating taxes on shareholder dividends. But the letter also called on the government to show spending restraint to keep the deficit under control. Mr Bush's economic programme will push the deficit up to record levels. The Economic Policy Institute said cutting tax on dividends was "not credible".
i'm all too familiar with the concept of experts, economists or otherwise, being anything but objective.
From what I've heard, several hardcore neoliberal economists (Friedman et al) support Bush's tax cut policies because even though they realize that they might lead to catastropic consequences stemming from the deficit, that Bush is avoiding telling us about and they are based on the discredited junk science of Supplysidism - the long run end result of those consequences -- a contracted government which results from when we eventually become insolvent, justifies the means no matter how costly they are or how much people are hurt by them in the shorter run. Of course, in the long run those jerks are dead and you and I have to deal with the mess.
Milton Friedman definitely does not support Bush's policies. I don't know what you define as "supplysidism," but Milton is a classical liberal, and it's a stretch to say that much if any of his work has been "discredited." I don't agree with him, but he's a brilliant guy and a forceful debator, and he certainly makes some valid -- however disconcerting -- points. But from what I've heard, people who have spoken to Friedman say he thinks very poorly of Bush.
You misunderstand, I was differentiating the two in one confusing run-on sentence. I know Friedman is a liberal, neoliberal, whatever you want to call him. I think he knows that deficits matter and that tax cuts don't automatically create surpluses. The supplysiders are mostly political hacks like Jack Kemp and that buffoon Larry Kudlow who's on MSNBC or CNBC and thnk that deficits cure themselves so you can spend all you want. Unfortunately that is the approach that is in place and that is the way it is sold to us.
"Now It's Official: Economy Shrunk"--headline, Reuters, Aug. 27 "U.S. gross domestic product--which measures total output within the nation's borders--expanded at a 2.8 percent annual rate in the second quarter."--Reuters, same story
does it matter if GDP grows if A) no jobs are created B) poverty rises C) incomes decrease ? this isn't just this year, all 3 of these things have happened for the past 3 years in a row this freaking stinks
I'm not an Economist so help me out here: GDP increases by 2.8%, but the economy shrunk. What am I missing?
Uh, looking at the 2 charts at the bottom of page 1?? They compare a host of statistics affecting a whole host of Americans, Texans included, from 2002 to 2003. Because we aren't finished with 2004, yet, that year can't be compared to the previous 2 years, as they were compared to each other. One quarter does not a year, or a Presidency, make. Does that help?
How do you measure the economy? Are you saying you don't look at GDP? Or what's the mix you use (unemployment, gdp, wages, etc). Also those stats don't mean anythig to me unless I see a larger data range and how the numbers were figured (adjusted for inflation, what is considered poverty rate each year). Again you may have valid numbers in this argument but it is a really weak assumption/argument to say the economy is down comparing 2 random years without even a way to check the data. PS - I'm not a texan. Hope that helps.
I'm not an economist, either. That makes 2 of us. Obviously, I'm a Texan. You said you need a larger data range, but you've fixated on one quarter's GDP. My range is larger than yours!
Your missing the fact that the initial numbers of Q2 growth were 3.0%. Those numbers were downgraded last week to 2.8%. Had basso bothered to link you to any of the numerous wire service articles about it from last week, such as this one: http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jhtml?type=businessNews&storyID=6089338 you could have figured it out. The fact that he didn't leads me to believe he either has a limited underrstanding of this area and misunderstood; or was deliberately avoiding it in order to strengthen an apparent claim of media bias, which has nothing to do with this thread.
