Unlike the Republican Party, I don’t believe in deceiving people. 
Besides, I’d rather admit my random-guess method up front, just to show how easily predictible Sam Stone’s OPs are of late… 
Well, there’s a chill in the air and we are getting mighty close to December
Not much point really. Firstly they’re ivory-tower academics for the most part, so they’re biased by the overwhelming liberalism of academia. Secondly this datapoint only gives us people who condemn Kerry’s plan. Well, duh. Anyone can find some large numbers of economists to condemn any economic plan. There are a lot of economists and their opinions vary as widely as the general public. The real crux is, is Kerry’s plan better or worse than Bush’s? No metrics were given on this point. For all we know all 368 of them have signed even more scathing condemnations of Bush’s plan.
If we just take the last bit of Sam’s quote, “All in all, 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.” and swap “George Bush” for “John Kerry” would it really be that different? Government has grown under Bush. Government has gotten more intrusive under Bush. Standard of living has gone down under Bush.
All in all the data given in the OP is a non-starter. Too shallow to draw any meaningful conclusions from.
Enjoy,
Steven
I probably should have been clearer. I don’t know if it’ll be a “mistake” in the sense of hurting the economy. I don’t know if we can actually measure something like that. Although these tax cuts and increases seem large, they’re really pretty small in comparison to the overall economy, and I think external market factors will play a larger roll in the health of the economy than either cutting or raising taxes a bit on “the rich”. I’d like to see the candidates talk about significantly shrinking the size of government spending, and you don’t do that by increasing taxes on anyone. That’s what I meant by “mistake”. But Bush has made the same mistake in a different way by significantly increasing spending even though he cut taxes, so I’m not too impressed with him either.
And, btw, I’m not a conservative. 
I may not be the most articulate guy around here, but you’d never catch me saying “very unique”…
…or “singularly unique”.
I agree with your first sentence, and I haven’t seen anything from Kerry that makes me too worried about his judgement.
As for Bush’s actions, you have to realize that my ideal federal tax code would be a flat tax with a high deductible, so I’m not going to criticize him for moving more in that direction than Kerry would. But he’s off base when it comes to controlling spending, and that’s where Bush and I part company, and one of the main reasons I won’t vote for him next month.
That’s pretty low, Lib.
I said nothing about the political leanings of the economists. Nor did I use any ad hominems.
I made three observations about the letter itself:
- It is odd that they claim Kerry will have to raise taxes far higher, without mentioning that by the same logic Bush must do the same to an even greater extent. Their analysis of Kerry can be easily said about Bush:
“Bush’s stated desire to cut the deficit in half and to boost federal spending substantially would almost certainly require far higher and broader tax increases than he has proposed.”
So where is their dismay over Bush’s imminent massive tax hikes?
This, incidentally, is where I said “does not compute”, which apparently means I am “rationalizing”. Right.
2. They use weasel words such as “almost certainly”. Anyone who has studied advertising will recognize this tactic immediately.
“Almost certainly” means “not certainly.”
Just as when you watch an ad claiming its product gives “virtually 100 percent protection”, it may still fail and you will have no recourse. They want to make the strongest sounding claim possible, while giving them ample weasel room if they are wrong.
3. If Kerry does need more money, it is very possible he will cut back on his plans rather than increase taxes further. Or he might use Bush’s method, and just pay for the plans without taxing.
I fail to see how this is rationalizing; indeed, it is not a good thing for Kerry. He will take a lot of flak about lying in his promises if he cuts back on them, and he will get hammered on being irresponsible if he does what Bush is doing.
But just look at the letter: they are assuming that Kerry will raise taxes far higher, when there are at least two other possibilities that are very likely.
Then they argue against Kerry’s nonexistant raised taxes. They argue against something that Kerry has consistently denied he will do. That is a “strawman” argument, as you know since you have studied that kind of thing.
I’m not asking you to agree with me on all this, Lib. I would welcome a response that actually responds to these points. But labelling my arguments as “rationalization” is just rude.
Well, that just goes to show you that you are a very singularly unique individual who always gives 110%.
So what you’re really saying is that the “mistake” lies in not decreasing spending. That’s really a seperate issue. It is possible to cut spending AND increase revenue (not that Kerry’s plan does this, but still they are not of necessity inextricable), just as it’s possible to cut revenue and increase spending (as Bush has done). I think the mistake was cutting taxes for the rich at a time when we’re running record defecits. So again I wonder how repealing those tax cuts would be a mistake. I can certainly understand the argument that increasing spending right now could be considered a mistake, but I don’t understand the argument that repealing the tax cuts for the rich would be a mistake. I can also understand the argument that it doesn’t go far enough, but that still doesn’t make it a mistake. In what sense is it a mistake? I mean repealing the tax cuts itself, not any side argument.
Sorry if I worded that poorly. I meant that it’s an argument frequently made by conservatives, not that you yourself are a conservative. I’m sure I could have been more clear on that.
As omeone who spent too many years in Academia Economics I can tell you that ‘b’ is absolutely not true. They do apply similar anaytical techniques, but are fully aware of the limitations of their analysis. However, they would tend to have better, if still imprecise insight into the subject. One of my favortie sayings is, “The difference between economists and others with respect to economics is that others don’t know but at least economists know they don’t know.”
THis list does not impress me. Econ departments are generally the most Conservative on college campuses and I am not surprised they could get 400 or so economists to sign such a letter.
Actually what I can’t figure out is why Lib can’t make up his mind. In the thread on Kerry and Edward’s attendance in Congress, Lib held:
Yet here, any questioning of the motivations of these economists, any suspicion that they might, in fact, be “hired shills” is met with:
So, Lib, I’m asking you to please make up your mind and stick with one position or the other for a period of at least one month. Thanks!
Hitler was against Albert Einstein and his theories because Einstein was a Jew and because relativity did not jibe with his absolutist ideology. The Nazi government published a tract named “100 Scientists Against Einstein”.
Einstein’s response? “Why 100? If I’d been wrong, one would have been enough.”
Kerry’s plan is what it is, and the only way of being sure it didn’t work would be to put it to the test. Couldn’t be worse than the plan in place now.
Hmm… Lately, a number of liberals on this board have been claiming that the reason there is a liberal bias on the SDMB is because the really smart people tend to come here, and smart people are more likely to be liberal.
I wonder if those same people would like to comment on why people with advanced degrees in economics would tend to be the most conservative people on college faculties?
There are lots of people that are fiscal conservatives. I consider myself a fiscal conservative, inasmuch as it is in fact economic arguments which persuade me on economic policies (rather than populism or egalitarianism on principle). jshore makes some very good economic arguments for environmentalism, as another example. I find this persuasive. But frankly, I’ll take The Economist’s word over these guys. Sorry.
Because conservatives get their academic asses kicked in every other department on campus?
He said that they are the most conservative on campus. That means relative to the other fields that people have advanced degrees in. Anyway, that is one person’s opinion. I’m sure if all you are looking for is 350 people from seemingly any school in the country without regard to prestige or anything then you could probably find 350 strong conservatives in almost any field.
By the way, out of curiosity, I went to the Harvard Business School website to see how big their faculty is…Turns out that they have, by my count on their faculty list, 225 current faculty and 64 emeritus faculty. That means the 56 who signed on to the letter criticizing Bush make up around 19% of the faculty. And, as the letter noted, they restricted the signing-on only to tenured or emeritus faculty “to avoid any suggestion of pressure on non-tenured faculty.” I don’t know how many of the 225 are untenured…The website faculty list doesn’t break it down that way.
[Actually, I should note that even though I commented, I am not really on of “those same people” in the sense that while I did make the argument that the SDMB attracts more-educated-than-average people, I didn’t necessarily feel this led to a liberal bias as much as a sort of liberal/libertarian bias with a distinct lack of the religious Right conservatives.]
I left out a few paragraphs of that letter to President Bush when I quoted it, but since it is not copyrighted I suppose that it is okay to include them here. And, I think they illustrate what to me is way more startling than what the OP suggested was startling…Namely, that 19% of the faculty (and an even greater percentage of the tenured and emeritus faculty, as they were the only ones allowed to sign) of Harvard Business School of all places signed onto a letter that expressed strong concerns about inequality and even mentioned the Gini coefficient:
Concern about growing inequality seems to be much more mainstream among faculty at one of the top business schools in the country than I would have ever suspected!