Depending upon which authorites you appeal to, the only thing that is certain is somebody is factually incorrect. My experts contradict your experts, so somebody is wrong. So we are back to partisan “Nuh Uh!/Yuh huh!” sniping.
Are they all ideological? The CBO says the job losses are trivial. Factcheck.org and Politifact both say that the job-killing claim isn’t true. So tell me, do the majority of signatories happen to be highly ideological partisans?
Sam: Do you have a link so we can see who the signatories are?
Meh. It’s the same old stuff from Sam about assessing someone’s credibility based on how closely their conclusions fit his idiosyncratic ideology.
If I type the first sentence of that letter into Google, I get a bunch of hits to right-leaning web sites. Not very convincing that these guys are non-partisan.
The first link I found says:
"It seems that you’re looking for something that’s either not here, has been moved, or has been updated and renamed.
You can still find what you were looking for by checking out the menu below, or going to the GOP.gov homepage."
Ha.
I’ve always thought it deeply unfair and untrue when people allege Americans can’t manage ironic humour.
Here’s the letter: Economist Letter Supporting ObamaCare Repeal | PDF | American Enterprise Institute | Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act
Most of the signatories are faculty members at colleges I’ve never heard of, most of which appear to be tiny liberal arts schools with distinctly conservative bents. Color me shocked.
Strange, I was sure I linked it in the original post. Oh well. here you go: Letter from economists. I read it today on Politico.
As linked before (but not cited), Politifact was not impressed with the letter from those economists:
Just a bunch of lightweight conservatives from second-tier schools, huh? You think that’s a fair description? Let’s see, here are the former titles of the working economists who signed the letter:
Director, Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
Chair, Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Health Statistics
Assistant Director, Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
Associate Director White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Chief Economist, Joint Economic Committee of the US Congress
Chief Economist, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Member, Economic Policy Advisory Board
Associate Director, White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Economist, Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Chairman, White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA)
Senior Economist, White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA)
Senior Economist, White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA)
Senior Economist, White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA)
Director, National Economic Council (NEC)
Senior Economic Adviser, The White House, Fellow, Cambridge University
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis - Nobel Laureate in Economics
President, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Economist, Federal Reserve Board of Governors
Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
Fellow, Globalization and Monetary Policy Institute, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy, Department of the Treasury
Undersecretary for Economic Affairs, Commerce Department
Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Labor
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Department of Defense
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services
Deputy Assistant Secretary, State Department
Public Trustee, Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds
The letter was signed by Ed Prescott and Robert Lucas, both Nobel laureates in economics.
And while there are plenty of smaller state colleges, there are signatories affiliated with A-list schools:
Stanford University
Cambridge University
Baylor University
Cal Poly
UC - Davis
UCLA
University of Chicago
Carnegie Mellon
Columbia
Cornell
Emory University
George Mason University
Georgetown University
NYU
Vanderbilt University
Their whole claim rests on the difference between saying that the bill will ‘kill jobs’, and saying that the bill will cause ‘a reduction in the labor supply’, which they seem to think are different things.
‘Job Killing’ doesn’t have to mean “It will destroy jobs that are currently being filled.” It can mean, “It will destroy jobs that would otherwise be created.”
In the end, it amounts to the same thing - more unemployment. Unemployment goes up when the number of jobs created is less than the number of jobs lost. It doesn’t really matter if the bill destroys existing jobs or merely prevents the creation of new ones. Either way, you get unemployment.
Oh for Christ’s sake. You can haughtily dismiss the list all you want but if you are going to handwave away the credentials of institutions like Columbia, Baylor, Carnegie Mellon, Cornell, Georgetown, Emory, George Mason, UC Davis as “colleges you’ve never heard of” with “distinctly conservative bents”, not to mention dismissing the opinions of innumerable very high ranking positons at CBO and OMB – if you are going to just dismiss all of that out of hand as talking out of their ass you go right ahead. In response I’d say you’ve completely lost all credibility if that’s the extent of your refutation
Cripes. I have no dog in this fight but even that is deliberately obtuse.
I should add that I do not dispute that the political orientation of the signatories is predominantly right-wing. Economists who disagree with the current administration are more likely to be on the right, and economists who believe that government interference in health care will lead to bad outcomes are also more likely to be on the right. But that doesn’t make them wrong, and this isn’t a list full of unknown lightweights picked from the bottom of the barrel because serious people wouldn’t get on board. These are mostly well known and well respected economists.
I’m not “haughtily dismissing the list”. I am pointing out that the majority of the signatories are nobodies - or somebodies with an axe to grind.
If you want to read more than that into my post, you should of course feel free to do so, but please mutter quietly to yourself rather than jabbering about it in public.
Well, not quite, IMHO, I have seen the same thing made before with “Hundred or more” signers that were scientists against the consensus regarding Antropological Global Warming and other issues in the past.
The problem to me is that what it usually happens is that many of the experts that sign are not completely aware of all the variables investigated by the CBO, and like the misleading lists made before by conservatives when attacking AGW, it looks to me that not all the signers are what they claim, in this case, economists.
You did notice that among the signers was a former director of the CBO and an assistant director of the CBO, right? Do you think they might have an inkling of what the CBO does, and what variables they look at? Also, don’t you think they’re capable of reading the CBO’s reports?
Also, one of the people was the scientific council chairman for the National Center for Health Statistics. I think he might have some knowledge of the kind of variables go into health care economics, don’t you?
Then of course there are four former members of the Office of Management and Budget, including its former chief economist, and a former chair of the White House Counsel of Economic Advisors (the position Christina Romer held).
As for knowing whether this bill might kill jobs, one of the signatories was the former chief economist for the U.S. Dept of Labor. I’m guessing he actually knows something about labor economics.
One of the signatories was Edward Prescott. He won the Nobel prize “for his contributions to dynamic macroeconomics: the time consistency of economic policy and the driving forces behind business cycles”. He’s not just an economist, he’s a Nobel-winning macroeconomist whose focus was the effect of economic policy on the business cycle.
Nobel Laureate Robert Lucas also signed this, and he’s one of the greatest economists of the 20th century. He’s the father of rational expectations theory, and he did work developing the new Keynesianism after the stagflation of the 1970’s.
This is either the single dumbest argument I have ever seen, or maybe you are just being disingenuous. The CBO said that with the healthcare bill some people who are currently working may be able to, and choose to, stop working because they will no longer have to get insurance through their employer. In what bizzaro universe is that a bad thing? It will actually reduce unemployment. Retired people do not count as unemployed and the jobs they retire from will need to be filled from the ranks of the unemployed.
You know what? You’re right. I should have thought through the statement about reduction in the labor supply, not a reduction in labor demand. After you posted that, I read the relevant section in the CBO report, and it does indeed say that the primary reason for reduction in jobs is that supply would be cut by people choosing to retire or quit because they no longer need to keep their jobs for health care reasons.
So I will offer the following clarification/retraction: If the Republicans are basing their ‘job-killing’ claim on the report of the CBO, they are being disingenuous (although the CBO does claim that there will likely be several hundred thousand low-paying jobs lost, there may also be jobs created in the health care industry, so we don’t really know what the net job effect of the bill will have when looking strictly at the direct effects of the bill).
The letter from the economists does not use the CBO report, but rather goes back to first principles: Raising taxes and imposing new regulations on business generally has a negative effect on job creation. Big deficits reduce GDP growth and the taxes required to pay the deficits off also kill GDP growth and jobs. And make no mistake - the health care bill is going to cost people more money. The only reason it’s scored as deficit neutral is because it relies on about 500 billion in cuts to Medicare and about 500 billion in new taxes. No one thinks the cuts to Medicare will happen, so it’s likely to transform into either one trillion dollars in new taxes, or it will push up the deficit.
Oh, it goes back to “first principles”, eh? Well, gosh, why didn’t you just say so? So these “first principles”, they are the universally accepted essential truths of economic science, then? No reputable economist disputes any of these “first principles”?
One must wonder, then, at the absence of any but conservative economists. I mean, given that these are “first principles” that even the least academically schooled economist must surely embrace. Are liberal economists such utter whores that they won’t even endorse something so clearly grounded in the fundamental facts of economics?
Shame, Mr Krugman! Shame, I say!