# 368 Economists are opposed to John Kerry **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 14, 2004, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/368-economists-are-opposed-to-john-kerry/269142 "2004-10-14T01:59:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/368-economists-are-opposed-to-john-kerry/269142/61 "2004-10-14T11:09:46Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > A noble effort, Sam. But you should have known that your OP would encounter an immediate wave of hysterical rationalization. If this is hysterical rationalization, **New Iskander** was right when he said my posts in his thread displayed an irrational hatred for Bush. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/368-economists-are-opposed-to-john-kerry/269142/62 "2004-10-14T11:17:39Z")
> [@Marley](#): > > If this is hysterical rationalization, New Iskander was right when he said my posts in his thread displayed an irrational hatred for Bush. The evidence is the evidence. Examine the immediate replies: 1. “How many of them are employed by conservative think-tanks?” 2. “Does not compute.” 3. “So far we have two conservatives and an art and oyster expert. Very impressive.” 4. “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?” [Note the ad hominem.] 5. “But, but, but there were 368 of them. And they signed affidavits!” [The entire post.] Therefore, my assertion about “an immediate wave of hysterical rationalization” holds. And it did not escape my attention that these same people who poo-pooed the economists likely have cited similar petitions as evidence of the veracity of claims about global warming. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/368-economists-are-opposed-to-john-kerry/269142/63 "2004-10-14T11:31:16Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > The evidence is the evidence. Examine the immediate replies: And this is hysteria? Even if it is, I think there was some very thorough analysis of the list afterward. > [@](#): > > And it did not escape my attention that these same people who poo-pooed the economists likely have cited similar petitions as evidence of the veracity of claims about global warming. Petitions are not a good way to gauge opinion or prove a point. I’m not sure all petitions are created equal, however. And saying what somebody has ‘likely’ done doesn’t make their criticisms invalid. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/368-economists-are-opposed-to-john-kerry/269142/64 "2004-10-14T11:36:11Z")
> [@Marley](#): > > Even if it is, I think there was some very thorough analysis of the list afterward. I’m sure you do; however, you should address that to someone who made some assertion about afterward. > [@](#): > > Petitions are not a good way to gauge opinion or prove a point. I’m not sure all petitions are created equal, however. And saying what somebody has ‘likely’ done doesn’t make their criticisms invalid. Or valid either, and that was rather the point. Good for the goose. Good for the gander. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/368-economists-are-opposed-to-john-kerry/269142/65 "2004-10-14T11:39:50Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I’m sure you do; however, you should address that to someone who made some assertion about afterward. Your post came after the reasoned analysis as well as the so-called hysterical rationalization and you didn’t make any distinction between the two. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/368-economists-are-opposed-to-john-kerry/269142/66 "2004-10-14T12:24:38Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Your post came after the reasoned analysis as well as the so-called hysterical rationalization and you didn’t make any distinction between the two. I did indeed, but let me make it easier for you. Quoting myself, “But you should have known that your OP would encounter an \*\*immediate \*\* wave of hysterical rationalization.” ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/368-economists-are-opposed-to-john-kerry/269142/67 "2004-10-14T12:31:10Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I did indeed, but let me make it easier for you. Quoting myself, “But you should have known that your OP would encounter an \*\*immediate \*\* wave of hysterical rationalization.” I got that. Why didn’t you say ‘you should have known that your OP would encounter an immediate wave of hysterical rationalization, followed by a round of substantive analysis of the people who signed it?’ 😛 I understand by now that you were referring to the first posts. I don’t know why you were talking about them at all when there were dozens of posts after the hysterical deluge. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/368-economists-are-opposed-to-john-kerry/269142/68 "2004-10-14T13:30:55Z")
> [@Marley](#): > > Why didn’t you say 'you should have known that your OP would encounter an immediate wave of hysterical rationalization, followed by a round of substantive analysis of the people who signed it? Before I answer, I want to know if that is the final resting place for your goalposts. First, you disputed that there were examples of rationalization. Then, you disputed whether I differentiated those from posts that followed. Now, you want to know why I did not give honorable mention awards to the other posts. If you think that by constantly changing the subject, you will dillute the assertion I actually made, you are mistaken. ---
**Author:** ![Jinx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Jinx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jinx)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/368-economists-are-opposed-to-john-kerry/269142/69 "2004-10-14T15:11:48Z")
a) Economists are like weathermen. b) Economists apply economic theory as if it were as pure as the laws of physics. c) Don’t trust the weathermen… 😉 - Jinx ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/368-economists-are-opposed-to-john-kerry/269142/70 "2004-10-14T15:24:36Z")
a) Economists are like weathermen. b) Economists apply economic theory as if it were as pure as the laws of physics. c) Don’t trust the weathermen. d) Therefore, Economists can’t be right. I like it - I like it ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/368-economists-are-opposed-to-john-kerry/269142/71 "2004-10-14T15:42:43Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > A noble effort, **Sam**. Never mind the quibbling about what part of the response to **Sam** ’s OP you were talking about: I’m curious as to why you still thought the OP was a “noble effort”, given how badly it held up against the “post-immediate-hysterical-rationalization” thorough and reasoned analysis part of the debate. It wasn’t a noble effort, it was a pretty feeble ploy. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/368-economists-are-opposed-to-john-kerry/269142/72 "2004-10-14T16:14:08Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Therefore, my assertion about “an immediate wave of hysterical rationalization” holds. And it did not escape my attention that these same people who poo-pooed the economists likely have cited similar petitions as evidence of the veracity of claims about global warming. Actually, **Liberal** , it was mainly the side that was naysaying global warming that relied on petitions…Look up “Oregon petition” if we want to see. (UCS did organize a counter-petition with a much more impressive list of signers…the top people in the field as opposed to anyone who claimed to be a scientist and wanted to sign on…but I don’t consider that to be the most convincing evidence for the scientific consensus on climate change.) So, the evidence of where the science stands on global warming doesn’t come from petitions. It comes from reviews of the science by the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the councils of the American Meteorological Society, and the American Geophysical Union, and editorials by the editors of the two most prestigious multidisciplinary science journals in the world (_Science_ and _Nature_) citing the balance of the peer-reviewed work that has appeared in their journals. So, cut it with the straw men please. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/368-economists-are-opposed-to-john-kerry/269142/73 "2004-10-14T16:26:52Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Hell, even Paul Krugman, before he became a partisan hack, might have signed this particular letter. Oh, bullshit! The hell he would have. > [@](#): > > There are other economic issues on which you can still find plenty of disagreement. But the value of free trade and open markets are among the most settled issues in economics. And Kerry is on the wrong side of those issues. And, you have presented no evidence to support this. (And, by the way, Kerry is no anti-free-trader. He voted **for** NAFTA, although hopefully he now recognizes that the infamous Chapter 11 in that agreement was a mistake.) Only people who believe that a trade agreement (and federal tax policy) isn’t perfect if it isn’t written by the multinational corporations themselves would claim that Kerry is anti-free-trade and anti-open-markets. > [@](#): > > As for the ‘debunking’ the rest of these people engage in, how ridiculous. What they consider to be a tainted economist is one who has ever, in any form, said or done anything that can be seen to support Republicans or Republican issues. Hey, that guy was appointed to a board by Reagan in 1980! Stop the presses! No, most of them had extremely strong connections. Go back and read what we wrote. These are people who had strong associations with conservative think-tanks that pushed supply-side theology and so forth. One of the twelve was the Republican House Majority Leader; another had actually served as a Republican in the Kansas legislature. Of course they are going to be critical of Kerry. > [@](#): > > And of course, they try to denigrate their credentials by pointing out that there are some smaller universities and colleges represented on the list - which is what you’d expect when an open letter to economists goes out. You’re going to get them from everywhere. But there are some heavy-hitters on this list, including many representatives from every Ivy League school in the nation. Well, we took a sample of 12 selected simply because they were the first 12 on the list. And, yes, we commented on some of the other ones because we couldn’t believe that they had to go down so low on the prestige list in order to come up with 350 economists willing to sign on. That to me is a surprise. I would have thought that nearly the entire faculty at University of Chicago would sign on, that’s sort of the grand temple of supply side theology (at least within academia). > [@](#): > > I also love how these economists can be completely ‘discredited’ by showing that they’ve ever had anything to do with a Republican, and yet complete partisans like Paul Krugman and Robert Reich are quoted as definitive sources. Look, **Sam** , you were the one who claimed that this was some remarkable thing that had happened. In fact, it is totally predictable. When we quote Krugman, we don’t say “Paul Krugman criticized Bush, so Bush’s economic policies must be shitty.” The letter you gave doesn’t have any dramatic facts…Just a bunch of vague claims that we have already in large part torn apart. Frankly, if I were you, I’d be pretty embarrassed at having started this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/368-economists-are-opposed-to-john-kerry/269142/74 "2004-10-14T16:44:45Z")
Boy, 368, eh? I would say something snarky about self-selecting samples, but that’d probably just be shrill rationalisation at work. Personally, my objections to Kerry’s earlier trade pronouncements have been stated before. However, for those fond of something a _little_ more scientific than a letter-writing campaign, _The Economist_ this week has a [poll](http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3262965) of economists on a broad range of economic issues, rating Bush and Kerry on their economic plans, separately and comparatively. Neither did very well, and Bush did slightly worse. The only area in which Bush outscores Kerry is trade. It’s interesting, and a bit more so for not being constructed with explicit partisan motivations. Personally, I don’t see many economists being too thrilled about the prospect of either candidate winning. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/368-economists-are-opposed-to-john-kerry/269142/75 "2004-10-14T17:46:32Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > [169 Business Scool Profs Dis Bush:](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/12/opinion/13forbush-final.html) Just for the record, [here](http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_14283.shtml) is a link that provides more info and the list of signers. Note that they are almost all business and economics professors at top-flight **business** schools; no University of East Timbucktoo here. And, I am sure many of them have strong political biases but the fact that 56 tenured or emiteritus professors from Harvard Business School alone would sign on makes it seem less likely to me that you will find the sort of political orthodoxy that we found in **Sam** ’s list. Here is some of what they say: > [@](#): > > The data make clear that your policy of slashing taxes - primarily for those at the upper reaches of the income distribution - has not worked. The fiscal reversal that has taken place under your leadership is so extreme that it would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. The federal budget surplus of over $200 billion that we enjoyed in the year 2000 has disappeared, and we are now facing a massive annual deficit of over $400 billion. In fact, if transfers from the Social Security trust fund are excluded, the federal deficit is even worse - well in excess of a half a trillion dollars this year alone. Although some members of your administration have suggested that the mountain of new debt accumulated on your watch is mainly the consequence of 9-11 and the war on terror, budget experts know that this is simply false. Your economic policies have played a significant role in driving this fiscal collapse. And the economic proposals you have suggested for a potential second term - from diverting Social Security contributions into private accounts to making the recent tax cuts permanent - only promise to exacerbate the crisis by further narrowing the federal revenue base. > > These sorts of deficits crowd out private investment and are politically addictive. They also place a heavy burden on monetary policy - and create additional pressure for higher interest rates - by stoking inflationary expectations. If your economic advisers are telling you that these deficits can be defeated through further reductions in tax rates, then you need new advisers. More robust economic growth could certainly help, but nearly every one of your administration’s economic forecasts - both before and after 9-11 - has proved overly optimistic. Expenditure cuts could be part of the answer, but your record so far has been one of increasing expenditures, not reducing them. > > What is called for, we believe, is a dramatic reorientation of fiscal policy, including substantial reversals of your tax policy. Running a budget deficit in response to a short bout of recession is one thing. But running large structural deficits over a long period is something else entirely. We therefore urge you to consider the fiscal realities we now face and the substantial burden they are placing on our economy. > > … > > Sensible and farsighted economic management requires true discipline, compassion, and courage - not just slogans. Given the tenuous state of the American economy, we believe that the time for an honest assessment of the problem and for genuine corrective action is now. Ignoring the fiscal crisis that has taken hold during your presidency may seem politically appealing in the short run, but we fear it could ultimately prove disastrous. From a policy standpoint, the clear message is that more of the same won’t work. The warning signs are already visible, and it is incumbent upon all of us to pay attention. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/368-economists-are-opposed-to-john-kerry/269142/76 "2004-10-14T18:41:23Z")
Kerry’s campaign rhetoric does seem to imply a lot of increased spending, and it doesn’t seem realistic that his tax the rich policy will pay for it. But I have to discount much of the rhetoric as, well, rhetoric. I don’t doubt that he’ll increase taxes on “the rich”, and I think that’s a mistake. But Bush has done a pretty miserable job at handling fiscal issues, so it’s hard to get too worked up about Kerry’s plans. Although I don’t agree much with his overall philosophy on economics and social policy, I expect that he’ll be more responsible than Bush about not letting the budget get out of control. I just don’t see a huge difference between Kerry and Bush in terms of how they can affect the overall economy. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/368-economists-are-opposed-to-john-kerry/269142/77 "2004-10-14T18:59:48Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Kerry’s campaign rhetoric does seem to imply a lot of increased spending, and it doesn’t seem realistic that his tax the rich policy will pay for it. I think that’s a valid criticism. > [@](#): > > But I have to discount much of the rhetoric as, well, rhetoric. I don’t doubt that he’ll increase taxes on “the rich”, and I think that’s a mistake. _Why_ would that be a mistake? It seems to me that people were saying the exact same thing when Clinton got into office, and we ended up with a period of unparalleled prosperity. And since Bush has _cut_ taxes for the rich, the predicted stimulating effect does not seem to have materialized. I wonder why conservatives continue to contend that taxes should remain at lower levels for the wealthy, with dire predictions of economic failure should we reinstate the previous higher bracket for them, when the evidence doesn’t seem to bear that out. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/368-economists-are-opposed-to-john-kerry/269142/78 "2004-10-14T19:00:47Z")
I’ll take **Sam’s** 368 and [\*\*raise them by 10 Nobel Prize-winning economists](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5818277/)\*\* > [@](#): > > \*\*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 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. \*\* There. That was my own “noble effort.” 😛 ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/368-economists-are-opposed-to-john-kerry/269142/79 "2004-10-14T19:09:06Z")
I agree with you, **John** (without having actually run the numbers or seen an honest attempt to run the numbers) that something is likely to have to give in Kerry’s plan, especially given the huge fiscal hole that Bush has created for us to dig out of. [I, of course, strongly disagree with you on the wisdom of repealing the tax cuts on the rich.] But (and I am sort of restating what you said here, I suppose), the point is that this President is very unique in his complete ability to simply ignore facts and govern totally on ideology. Kerry has not shown any strong tendency to do this; In fact, Reagan didn’t even do it nearly to the degree that Bush has…As others have noted, Reagan actually reversed portions of his original tax cuts as it became clear what sort of fiscal hole he was driving us into. Bush, instead, has just dug deeper with more tax cuts for the wealthy. Ultimately, one has to trust that the President will look at the facts and make a good judgement about what to do. The evidence from this President is overwhelmingly abundant and clear: **He will simply not do that!** And, I think he is singularly unique in his complete pigheadedness. And, thus we drift on toward fiscal catastrophe. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2004, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/368-economists-are-opposed-to-john-kerry/269142/80 "2004-10-14T19:14:18Z")
> [@](#): > > Kerry has not shown any strong tendency to do this; Actually, I should add that even if Kerry wanted to, I don’t see how he could given the Congress. While it is conceivable that the Senate will go narrowly Democratic, it is extremely doubtful that the House will. And, even if it does, the Democrats in Congress has never shown the sort of lock-step Delay “The Hammer” enforcement that would allow a Democratic President to govern so ideologically, at least without quite a large Democratic majority in both chambers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/368-economists-are-opposed-to-john-kerry/269142.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/368-economists-are-opposed-to-john-kerry/269142.md?page=5)