368 Economists are opposed to John Kerry

Great Debates
1

There is a pretty startling letter out today, signed by 368 economists, including six nobel prize winners, criticising John Kerry’s economic policies:

This is amazing in the sheer number of economists that have signed this. Six American Nobel Laureates in economics. Just about every university is represented. This is as wide a swath of academia you’re ever likely to find on one side of an issue.

This underscores something I’ve repeated for a long time - disagreements about things like trade and tax policy are not just a matter of opinion. They have been largely decided by economists - there is widespread agreement on the value of free trade, globalization, fewer regulation, and freer markets. And John Kerry is on the wrong side of all of them.

If you want to see the results of the Kerry-style economic policies, take a look at Europe. Not long ago, Europeans had about the same standard of living as Americans. Today, U.S. per-capita GDP is almost 40% higher than the EU average. Chronic high unemployment rates, huge debt, and a non-productive workforce are the hallmarks of interventionist economics and higher taxes on the productive.

Comments?

2

How many of them are employed by conservative think-tanks?

And where was this emphasis on credentials when a group of scientists, including 10 Nobel laureates, condemned Bush’s policies?

3

This line stands out:
“Kerry’s stated desire to balance the budget and to boost federal spending substantially would almost certainly require far higher and broader tax increases than he has proposed.”

This doesn’t make sense. Bush’s plans actually cost more than Kerry’s, so why do Kerry’s plans require far higher tax increases?

Does not compute.
“Almost certainly” is also a use of weasel words. Basically, they are saying it is not certain. But the way they phrase it is intended to make people get the impression that it is, as it seems to have done for you.
Finally, I think it is more likely that in the “almost” certain, but not certain, case that Kerry does need more money for his plans, he would cut back on the plans rather than raise taxes.

Apparently, these economists completely ignore that possibility, and assume that Kerry would raise taxes more, despite him saying he would not.

It’s easy to argue against a position that Kerry never took, which is exactly what these economists are doing.

4

rjung said:

Read the list yourself.

5

Well, let’s take the first 3 shall we?

Burton A. Abrams - Professor of Economics, University of Delaware
Recent Publications
“Campaign-Finance Reform: A Public-Choice Perspective,” (with Russell F. Settle), Public Choice, forthcoming.
“The Effect of Government Size on the Unemployment Rate,” Public Choice, 99 (3-4), 1999.
“Women’s Suffrage and the Growth of the Welfare State,” (with R. F. Settle) Public Choice, 100 (3-4), 1999.

Douglas K. Adie - Professor of Economics, Yorktown University
From his CV:
“He has testified before Congressional Committees on the unemployment effects of minimum wages” and “has been listed by the Heritage Foundation as a policy expert since 1984.”

Richard J. Agnello - Associate Professor of Economics, University of Deleware
Recent Publications:
“Investment Returns and Risk for Art: Evidence from Auctions of American Paintings.” Eastern Economic Review, Vol. 28, No. 4: 443-464, Fall, 2002.
Book Review of Painting Outside the Lines: Patterns of Creativity in Modern Art in Economic History Services, May, 2002.
“Returns and risk for art: findings from auctions of American paintings differentiated by artist, genre, and quality,” Economics of Art Auctions (G. Mossetto and M. Vecco, eds.), Franco Angeli, Milano, pp.39-70. 2002.
“Property Rights and Efficiency in the Oyster Industry” (with L. Donnelley), originally published, Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 18, No. 2, 521-533; reprinted in Tom Tietenberg et al, eds., The International Library of Environmental Economics and Policy, Vol. II, Nov., 2001.
“Financial Returns, Price Determinants, and Genre Effects in American Art Investment,” (with R. Pierce), Journal of Cultural Economics, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1996.
So far we have two conservatives and an art and oyster expert. Very impressive.

6

Interesting… from a randomized poll conducted by The Economist of academic economists published last week showed that academic economists far favored Kerry’s overall economic planning as opposed to Bush’s.

Of course, Kerry got reamed for wanted to restrict free-trade and his tirades against job outsourcing, but the strong majority of economists was much more critical of Bush’s lackadaisical attitudes towards fiscal policy; increasing government involvement and spending in a number of areas without making corresponding cuts in other areas like social spending nor making any real strides against the major demographic crises that the US will be facing in terms of a run-away social security system.

So, I guess what Sam Stone is really trying to point out to all of intelligent, learned Dopers is that it’s not very bright for anyone to base a policy decision based upon these “open political letters” that have become so popular. There are a lot of any type of experts out there, and 368 economists doesn’t mean much compared with randomized sampling and actual surveys of a group of professionals. Right, Sammy?

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=S')(%24*P1_%%20P"L &tranMode=none

7

But, but, but there were 368 of them. And they signed affidavits!

8

All I have to say is, don’t be dissin’ oysters. Best appetizers on the planet.
As for the idea that any majority of economists would favor Bush, well, that’s laughable in the extreme. I read all kinds of financial stuff, and outside of the Saturday morning Fox News investment shows, which have become nothing but pro-Bush roundtables, the overwhelming evidence I see is a realization of just how disastrous Bush’s free-spending policies have been.

9

What is most startling (well, maybe not once you read it) is how they had to go down to University of East Timbucktoo in order to find that many economists willing to sign on to this. And, I am just shocked to hear that economists a Laffer Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, Fraser Institute, John Locke Foundation, and Pfizer support Bush! Who’d have thunk it?!?!

Are we to expect that the next 3 weeks you will be keeping us abreast of all the Bush campaign press releases by starting threads like this? It’s gonna be a long 3 weeks!

10

Way to sidestep the question, Sam (and you know you’re sidestepping the question). Of the three that I researched, one (Abrams) is a past fellow of the Hoover Institution, another (Adie) is listed by the Heritage Foundation as an “expert” (although of what, I don’t know), and the last (Agnello - the art and oyster expert) is a friggin expert on art and oysters.

11

Actually, UCS’s letter on the Bush Administrations abuse of science has now been signed onto by over 5000 scientists, including 48 Nobel Prize winners and 62 National Medal of Science recipients. Here’s a list of prominent signatories with a key showing their awards:

But, of course, these are all just a bunch of liberal egg-heads, so who should listen to them? :wink: And, admittedly, they don’t include people at right-wing (or left-wing) think-tanks or at such prestigious places as University of Toledo, Boise State University, and Appalachian State University like Sam’s list, but hey…What can you do?

12

I’m curious. Were these economists comparing what Bush did in the last term with what Kerry says he going to doing in the upcoming? Hell, if Kerry can do what he says he’s gonna do I’d vote for him in a heartbeat. In order to pull that off he’d have to be the Magical Man from Happyland, and I’d be living in a gumdrop house on Lollipop Lane.

13

169 Business Scool Profs Dis Bush:

14

I think I just wore my mouse wheel out.

15

So several responses to the effect of, ‘But…but…they are probably conservatives!’, and none actually addressing the economists’ concerns?

16

My short and flippant answer is, who cares? Economy is theory, not hard science. It is educated guessing. Economists are often just as wrong as the rest of us. Greenspan for one has been crying about the end of the world, well since forever. They just use bigger words. Also, the Heritage foundation is not exactly nonpartisan. But, that’s OK, art and oyster experts are always right.

17

We know what their concerns are…That John Kerry hasn’t drunk the supply-side Kool-Aid, that John Kerry actually bases his economic policies on reasons rather than hokey theories that haven’t been shown to match empirical reality.

And, sure, there’s probably a little bit of wild optimism in Kerry’s claiming that he would create 10 million jobs over the next 4 years. But, hey, any jobs created would be an improvement since under Bush we will have lost on the order of a million jobs during his term while turning our structural surplusses into large structural deficits all in the name of “stimulus” (or at least that became the excuse once the recession came…the original marketing was different, but hey, you gotta change the marketting, not (heaven forbid!) the product, to fit the facts).

As for entitlement reform, well, social security is solvent out for close to an estimated 40 more years without any changes at all. What will have to change, however, is that by ~2017, we won’t be able to balance the budget on the backs of workers by using the social security surplusses to fund the rest of government and will have to actually start to repay some of what we borrowed from S.S. after that. This is why Bush’s lack of fiscal discipline is so scary. [And, Bush’s idea of private accounts, as Kerry points out, only worsens the problem over the forseeable future by reducing the money going into the social security trust fund.]

Medicare is going to be a bigger problem…as are medical costs in general…but I haven’t heard any great plans from Bush in this regard either (except to structure the new drug coverage benefit so that it gives the maximum amount of money to the drug companies and the minimum amount of help to seniors).

How much you want to bet that almost all of these same economists were warning of the same sort of disasters happening when Clinton was running in '92?

18

Well, since you mentioned Europe…… France passed the Aubry Law in 1998 which created a 35 hr workweek in order to bring unemployment down. While they managed to get it into single digits they have not gained much in relation to their European counterparts. Right now they are at 9.9% (which is a slight rise over their previous 9.8% rate). While this probably looked good on paper it did nothing for French productivity and has not improved their standing in the Euro community.

"France has a mandatory 35-hour workweek and extended vacation time for workers across the country. This is not unusual—for a number of EU countries, 35 hours is standard. For a U.S. company looking to set up a manufacturing location, this means five shifts per week, versus four shifts in the U.S. Taking into account the combination of a 35-hour work week, plus allowances for extended holiday coverage, a company would need to hire 234 workers in France (and the Netherlands and U.K.), while an East German location, with a 40-hour work week, would require 180 workers, according to recent Fluor research"

I would think the French economists would come to a consensus on the cause but that is not the case
**
“The rise also confounded economists expectations for the unemployment rate to remain unchanged at 9.8 percent.” **

President Bush inherited a recession at the same time a war was waged directly at the US economy. Despite this the United States is far ahead of the average European unemployment rate. This was done using the time-tested method of tax reductions to stimulate the economy.

19

Wow, 56 professors at Harvard Business School alone?!?! How many professors do they even have there?

20

The time-tested way is to give the tax cuts to the people that will spend the money (poor and middle class). The Bush way was to give the majority to the wealthy and to make the cuts permanent so that those cuts kept on giving to those wealthy long after the need for stimulus was gone. That’s why he created so little stimulus while fucking up the fiscal situation so badly.