| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/29 |
| 2004/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34100 Activity:very high |
10.13 Why doesn't Kerry listen to scientists?
368 Economists Including Nobel laureates against Kerry
economic plan
http://nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/carter200410131105.asp
\_ please point out one goddamn economist who is in favor
of proposed bush economic policies, and for bonus points
name one that didn't appear in a matthew broderick movie - danh
\_ I don't watch many movies, most of them are worthless,
so your reference is lost on me.
\_ What do these laureates propose as an alternative? If they
think what Bush is doing is good (bankrupting the government)
then we don't need to pay attention to them. This article sounds
like a Bush stump speech. Do these laureates know that Bush has
proposed $3 trillion worth of new spending (even more than Kerry)?
\_ that's not $3 trillion of "new spending", it's a $3 million
bottom-line figure, most of it from tax cuts -> reduced govt
income from taxes, and the $3 million is "as much as", I wouldn't
say "over" as Krugman does.
\_ "Bush-Cheney '04 today announced...."
What, PRNewsWire was busy?
The actual letter:
http://csua.org/u/9gs (NRO)
\_ Why should anyone listen to scientists unless they are
discussing their field of expertise? Scientists are usually out
of touch with reality. I work with a lot of scientists and they
are just one class of smart people. Why not listen to doctors,
generals, businessmen, or anyone else? A Nobel prize does not
mean they know crap about anything outside of their field.
\_ wow, looks like Dubya really needed the help today!
where were these guys several months ago?
\_ 70% of academic economists rate Bush as bad or very bad.
http://economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3262965
\_ This is much stronger than the "368 Economists" piece, especially
if you consider the methodology used by http://economist.com.
I hope if Dubya attacks with "368 Economists", Kerry rebuts with
http://economist.com.
\_ The sample from NRO is 365, the economist 56. Interesting
conclusions you draw from a sample 7 times smaller, and
no Nobel Laureates.
\_ omg, please re-read what you wrote, and if you still
believe everything you wrote, say you're serious.
\_ You present 56, NRO presents 365. You would
have preferred the authors submitted it as a
'survey'?
\_ So, you're serious about your original statement?
Yes/No, please.
\_ completely, yes. Samples are highly skewed
in both cases. I, as the op, posted
the article as a joke, to illustrate the
stupidity of these types of posts. This
nuance seemed to escape you.
\_ - NRO presents 368 signatures of which 100%
agree with the statement. There was no
alternate petition circulated, nor was there
a recording of the number of economists
who disagreed with the statement.
- http://economist.com took a RANDOM SAMPLE from among
the journal referees of the American Economic
Review. Of this random sample, 70% of
respondents rated Dubya's 1st-term economic
policies as bad or very bad. Of this random
sample, 27% rated Kerry's economic plan as
bad or very bad.
- This major error in interpreting statistics
seems to have been lost on you, or, you didn't
read the http://economist.com methodology, which
I mentioned several replies up. |
| 5/29 |
|
| nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/carter200410131105.asp October 13, 2004, 11:05 am 368 Economists Against Kerrynomics The challengers policies would bring a lower standard of living for the A merican people. By J Edward Carter & Cesar V Conda Leading economists have a message for America: John Kerry favors economic policies that, if implemented, would lead to bigger and more intrusive government and a lower standard of living for the American people. a statement Wednesday by 368 econ omists, including six Nobel laureates: Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Milt on Friedman, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, and the winner of this year s Nobel Prize in Economics Edward C Prescott. Kerrys policies would, over time, inhibit capital formation, de press productivity growth, and make the United States less competitive i nternationally. The end result would be lower US employment and real w age growth. Kerry claims he wants to bala nce the federal budget, but as the Washington Post pointed out last Augu st, Sen. John F Kerrys pledge to reduce record federal budget deficits is colliding with an obstacle that may be growing higher by the week: hi s own campaign commitments. In fact, Kerrys spending proposals would add an estimated $226 billion annually to federal spending. To put this in perspective, $226 billion is roughly equal to the gross domestic product s of Greece or Sweden. Kerrys oft-repeated budget solution is to raise taxes on families making over $200,000 on income earned above $200,000 to their levels under Pres ident Clinton. This proposal would generate hundreds-of-billions of doll ars over the next decade for the Treasurys coffers. Kerrys other propose d tax increases would generate billions more. Yet, these tax increases w ould offset only a fraction of Kerrys new spending. For instance, Senator Kerrys government-run health insurance spending pla n would by itself require a tax increase of more than $1 trillion. Two i ndependent studies, one by the Lewin Group and another by the American E nterprise Institute, concluded that Kerrys health insurance proposal wou ld cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. To close the funding gap between all of h is spending and tax promises, Kerry would have to raise taxes by an aver age of $1,431 for everyone who files an income-tax return. The stark disconnect between Kerrys spending and tax proposals is what pr ompted 368 leading economists to conclude, Kerrys stated desire to balan ce the budget and to boost federal spending substantially would almost c ertainly require far higher and broader tax increases than he has propos ed. And given Kerrys voting record in the Senate he has cast 98 votes for tax increases totaling more than $23 trillion throughout his legisl ative career that is no idle threat. It is no secret that John Kerry wants Americas foreign policy to be more like that of Germany and France. But perhaps even more disturbing, he ha s demonstrated that he wants to emulate their failed tax-and-spend econo mic policies, too. Germany and France o nce enjoyed standards of living comparable to those of the United States . Today, US per capita GDP is 38 percent higher than that of Germany a nd 43 percent higher than that of France. Indeed, as economist Bruce Bar tlett recently pointed out, On average, Europeans only live about as wel l as those in the poorest American state, Mississippi. The 368 economists only briefly touched upon Kerrys trade policies. Kerry has expressed a general reluctance to reduce trade barriers, and he has promised, if el ected, to review existing trade agreements. According to the 368 economi sts, That's a prescription for political gridlock. Given the widespread benefits of unfettered trade, Kerrys trade policies would harm US prod ucers and consumers alike. Finally, we have all heard John Kerry denigrate the present rate of job c reation. Yet, according to latest Bureau of Labor Statistics employment report, 19 million jobs have been created since August 2003. And at 54 percent, the unemployment rate is below the average unemployment rates of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. We have also heard Kerrys solemn vow to create 10 million new jobs during his first term as president. economy is likely to create about that many jobs over the next four years under current policy. During the first nine months of 2004 while Kerry was criticizing the pa ce of employment growth payroll employment grew an average of more tha n 170,000 jobs a month. At that rate, the next administration would pres ide over the creation of roughly 82 million net new jobs. And yet, as M artin Sullivan pointed out in Tax Notes, Kerry has not presented one obj ective analysis to support his claim that his policies would create 1 mi llion more jobs, much less 10 million more. John Kerry has adopted the Walter Mondale approach to economics increas e taxes. Even advocates of Keynesian economics would not recommend raisi ng taxes in the early stages of an economic recovery. Unlike Mondale, ho wever, Kerry will wait until after the election to reveal all of the tax increases that will be required to pay for his government spending prom ises. Three hundred and sixty eight economists hope American voters will heed their warnings before it is too late. Carter & Conda: 368 Economists Against Kerrynomics 10/13 11:05 am Krugman Truth Squad: Bush Truths, Krugman Lies 10/13 9:36 am Bartlett: Outsourcing Myths Debunked! |
| csua.org/u/9gs -> www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/release_bc04_economists.html To: Interested Parties From: Bush-Cheney '04 Communications Date: 10/13/04 Re: Letter Criticizing John Kerry's Economic Plans Signed By 368 Of The N ation's Leading Economists Bush-Cheney '04 today announced 368 of the nation's leading economists fr om 44 states have signed an economic statement denouncing John Kerry's e conomic proposals. The group boasts six Nobel laureates, including recen t winner and Professor of Economics at Arizona State University Edward C . Prescott, as well as six former chairs of the President's Council of E conomic Advisers. America 's economists recognize that President Bush's pro-growth policies and across-the-board tax relief are the right polic ies for sustained growth and they are urging voters not to turn back wit h John Kerry's tax and spend agenda. Glenn Hubbard, Dean of the Columbia University Business School and former Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, said: "Ideas and response to events are the tests of economic leadership. President B ush's focus on raising long-term growth using well-timed tax cuts, openi ng markets, and seeking to limit regulatory and litigation costs has fur thered the global economic expansion. The administration's leadership i n the War on Terror, the management of terrorism risk, and restoring inv estor confidence also limited potentially damaging downturns of confiden ce. Senator Kerry's recipe of limiting job creation by raising tax rates on entrepreneurs and our most successful global companies, while radica lly expanding the size and scope of government will limit future economi c growth and lead to increasingly grim fiscal choices." Economists' Statement On John Kerry's Economic Agenda To whom it may concern: We, the undersigned, strongly oppose key aspects of the economic agenda t hat John Kerry has offered in his bid for the US presidency. He promises to "end corporate welfare as we know it" by implementing the "M cCain-Kerry commission on corporate welfare," but he also proposes to pr ovide additional "tax credits and subsidies to manufacturers" that meet his criteria. Entitlement reform is the most important fiscal challenge facing the coun try, yet Kerry's approach has been to deny that any fix is needed. Inde ed, Kerry criticized the recent Medicare expansion for not being large e nough. John Kerry has proposed tax increases that threaten to sap the economy's vitality and reduce long-term growth. He would also, among other things, "restore the capital gains and dividend rates for families making over $200,000 on income earned ab ove $200,000 to their levels under President Clinton." Kerry's stated d esire to balance the budget and to boost federal spending substantially would almost certainly require far higher and broader tax increases than he has proposed. John Kerry boasts that his economic policies will lead to the creation of 10 million jobs in his first term as president. As Martin Sullivan wro te last April in the strictly non-partisan Tax Notes, no one "has presen ted any analysis to relate the Kerry plan to the creation of 1 million j obs, much less 10 million jobs." In fact, we believe Kerry's proposals would, over time, inhibit capital formation, depress productivity growth , and make the United States less competitive internationally. The end result would be lower US employment and real wage growth. John Kerry has expressed a general reluctance to reduce trade barriers. H e has promised, if elected, to "review existing trade agreements." Given the widespread benefits of unfettered trade, K erry's trade policies would harm US producers and consumers alike. All in all, John Kerry favors economic policies that, if implemented, wou ld lead to bigger and more intrusive government and a lower standard of living for the American people. Note : Affiliations are provided for identification purposes only. The or ganizations listed below should in no way be considered as endorsing the views of the individual. Burton A Abrams University of Delaware Douglas K Adie Ohio University Richard Agnello University of Delaware William Albrecht University of Iowa Donald L Alexander Western Michigan University William R Allen University of California , Los Angeles Ryan C Amacher University of Texas-Arlington Annelise Anderson The Hoover Institution, Stanford University Martin Amderson The Hoover Institution, Stanford University Wayne Angell Angell Economics (proprietor) Jim Araji University of Idaho Richard K Armey Former US House Majority Leader John Baden Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment Charles W Baird California State University , Hayward Anatol Balbach Private Economist Ray Ball University of Chicago A Paul Ballantyne University of Colorado at Colorado Springs King Banaian St. Texas A&M University John S Chipman University of Minnesota Barry R Chiswick University of Illinois Chicago Richard H Clarida Columbia University JR Clark University of Tennessee R Morris Coats Nicholls State University Joe Cobb Dana Point , California Howard Cochran, Jr. University of Nebraska at Omaha Jeff Dorfman University of Georgia William C Dunkelberg Temple University Robert M Dunn, Jr. Milton Friedman The Hoover Institution Kenneth C Froewiss New York University, Stern School of Business B Delworth Gardner Brigham Young University Dave Garthoff University of Akron Gerald Garvey Claremont Graduate University James F, Gatti University of Vermont Gregory M Gelles University of Missouri Rolla Joseph A Giacalone St. John's University Adam Gifford California State University, Northridge Otis W Gilley Louisiana Tech University Edward L Glaeser Harvard University Amy Jocelyn Glass Texas A&M University Richard F Gleisner St. North Carolina State University Judd W Patton Bellevue University William Peirce Case Western Reserve University (emeritus) Tim Perri Appalachian State University Mark J Perry University of Michigan Flint William H Peterson Heritage Foundation Christopher Pflaum Spectrum Economics, Inc. Charles R Plott California Institute of Technology Ivan Pongracic, Jr. J Antonio Villamil Former US Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs Kip Viscusi Harvard University John Volpe Trinity College Richard E Wagner George Mason University William B Walstad University of Nebraska Lincoln. |
| economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3262965 E-mail this The economy and the election The dismal science bites back Oct 7th 2004 | WASHINGTON, DC From The Economist print edition George Bush comes out worst in our poll of academic economists WOULD John Kerry or George Bush do a better job stewarding America's econ omy? Within the past couple o f months both candidates have had narrow leads on the issue. Ask economi cs professors, however, and you get a clearer answer. In an informal poll of 100 academics, conducted by The Economist, Mr Bush 's policies win low marks. More than 70% of the 56 professors who respon ded to our survey rate Mr Bush's first-term economic policies as bad or very bad. Fewer than 20% give positive marks to Mr Bush's second-term ec onomic agenda, and almost six out of ten disapproved. Mr Kerry hardly go t rave reviews either, but his economic plan still fared better than the president's did. In all, four out of ten professors rated Mr Kerry's ec onomic plan as good or very good, but 27% gave it negative scores. We chose their names, at random, from among the referees of the American Economic Review, one of the profession's m ore prestigious publications. Conservatives often moan that university p rofessors are all left-wingers. Though most of our professors claim they are not interested in working in Washington, 80% of those who would acc ept a policy job would prefer to work for Mr Kerry. However, even if you allow for some partisanship, the results are fairly striking. A third of the economists reckon the economy is in good or very good shap e; about half give a neutral response, and one in five deems the economy to be weak. They are almost equally split about how much responsibility the Bush administration deserves for the state of today's economy. Just over a third assign some or all credit or blame to the president; anoth er third think he has had little or nothing to do with it. Despite their diverse assessments of today's economy, the professors are overwhelmingly critical of the central plank of Mr Bush's economic polic ytax cuts. More than seven out of ten respondents say the Bush administ ration's tax cuts were either a bad or a very bad idea, and a similar pr oportion disapproves of Mr Bush's plans to make his tax cuts permanent. By contrast, Mr Kerry's plan to roll back the tax cuts for people with i ncomes over $200,000 wins the support of seven in ten of them. Although Americans overall seem relatively unconce rned about the budget deficit, a large majority of the economists rate i t as a serious problem for the economy, with almost one in five describi ng it as a crisis. And they back Mr Kerry by a large margin (79% to 18%) to do more to promote fiscal discipline than Mr Bush. In contrast, the boffins seemed much less concerned by the current-account deficit; only one respondent called it a crisis, and close to 20% deemed it either a s mall problem or no problem at all. Health care also seems to be an issue that pushed our economists towards Mr Kerry. More than 70% of the academics reckoned health-care costs were a serious problem for the economyand they preferred Mr Kerry's plans t o control those costs by a margin of 59% to 25% (with the rest ducking t he question). More than 40% of the academics hail his plan to simplify the tax code as a good or very good ideatwice as many as think it bad or very bad. Mr Kerry's main tax-refo rm proposalending the ability of foreign subsidiaries of American firms to defer taxes on their profitswas less well received. Around a third of the professors thought that was a good or very good idea, a third wer e neutral, and a third thought it was a bad idea. On entitlement reform, the academics' opinions are harder to interpret. T hey are evenly split on the merits of Mr Bush's proposal to reform Socia l Security by creating personal retirement accounts: 36% think it is a g ood or very good idea, 38% a bad or very bad idea. Oddly, most of them t hink Mr Kerry offers better plans for dealing with the baby-boomers' ret irement, even though he has not actually made any concrete proposals for entitlement reform. One area where the economists clearly favour Mr Bush is trade. Mr Kerry's ranting about outsourcing has irritated economists: a huge majority dis miss outsourcing as either a small or non-existent problem, and almost 6 0% give Mr Kerry's trade policy a bad or very bad rating. Although they are plainly not wild about Mr Bush's record on trade, they back him by a margin of almost two-to-one to do more to help free trade and globalisa tion than Mr Kerry would. |
| economist.com Mobile Phone Accessories Phone Batteries, Chargers, Cases, Sim Cards, Aerials, Handsfrees, Dual Sims, Data Cables, Fast Free UK Delivery Tel 01946-591764 Take your French, German, Italian or Spanish towards fluency by subscribing to C Audiomagazines. UPDATED Sep 10th 2004 EPA A car bomb at the Australian embassy in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta, has killed at least eight people. The attack suggests the Jemaah Islamiah militant group remains a threat--and that it may be trying to influence both countries' forthcoming elections ... |