NationStates Jolt Archive

includes some Nobel prize winners and the always famous Milton Friedman.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/carter200410131105.asp

Hah! Too bad the College of Business is across campus from the Econ. department.. we coulda had dueling posters.. :(

"I never met a tax cut I didn't like, and I like President Bush's a lot."

Milton Friedman

"I never met a tax cut I didn't like, and I like President Bush's a lot."

Milton Friedman

Perhaps he likes tax cuts for good reason(keep in mind he is a nobel prize winning economist, he wrote my economics textbook too I think)

One of the 368 economists cited is this year's Nobel Prize winner in Economics, Edward Prescott, who recently said the Bush tax cuts were actually smaller than they needed to be (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041011/pl_afp/nobel_economics_us_taxes_041011212152). But, I bet you Libs will say "what the hell does he know?"

What? Do you think these economists are better than me?

Perhaps he likes tax cuts for good reason(keep in mind he is a nobel prize winning economist, he wrote my economics textbook too I think)

I can top that.. my econ book was written by Mankiew.. recently appointed Bush's top economic advisor.. :p

All I can say is.. good choice. ;)

I'm glad this thread is here. That article put's Kerry's plan in a light that only the mindlessly brainwashed couldn't accept. I'd like to see left-wing rhetoric refute all those economists.

I'm glad this thread is here. That article put's Kerry's plan in a light that only the mindlessly brainwashed couldn't accept. I'd like to see left-wing rhetoric refute all those economists.
Oh, they will try. They will first say that his "plan" only raises taxes on the wealthiest. Then they will say those "evil" rich deserve it.

10 Nobel prize winning economists endorsed Kerry (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5818277/) a while back. Different economists have different beliefs about what the economy needs. Friedman is a starve the beast economist, so it's no shock he endorses Bush. If you're not a starve the beaster, you don't support Bush. Not much surprise there.

"In fact, Kerry’s spending proposals would add an estimated $226 billion annually to federal spending."---article linked at the beginning of this thread

"If Congress cannot agree on savings, John Kerry will be willing to sacrifice some of his priorities, if necessary, to control spending."---John Kerry's actual spending plan
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/fiscal_responsibility.html



"And given Kerry’s voting record in the Senate — he has cast 98 votes for tax increases..."---article linked at the beginning of this thread

"Of the 98 votes 'for tax increases,' 43 would not actually have increased taxes. They were for budget bills to set target levels for spending and taxes in the coming fiscal years."---that website Dick Cheney supposedly wanted us to check
http://www.factcheck.org/article247.html


If those 368 economists don't even know John Kerry's spending plans or Senate voting record, how can we trust them to know what effect he'll have on the economy?

I guess I'd give a crap if I didn't think economists should go out and find real jobs like the rest of us.

i'm surprised that they give nobel prizes for such a useless thing as the study of economics.


geez. they should get rid of that category and add an extra one to the sciences.

i'm surprised that they give nobel prizes for such a useless thing as the study of economics.


geez. they should get rid of that category and add an extra one to the sciences.Watch it--next thing you'll be saying they should get rid of the one for literature, and even though I have virtually no chance of winning that one, it's the only one I've got a shot at. :D

Milton is my hero.

Milton is my hero.
I prefer Dante myself. :D

I guess I'd give a crap if I didn't think economists should go out and find real jobs like the rest of us.

Yeah, and let's get rid of the other sciences as well, I mean who needs them? ...life was so much better in the dark ages...:)

368? Wow, maybe I should listen to such a large number... hehe. :rolleyes:

368? Wow, maybe I should listen to such a large number... hehe. :rolleyes:
If 264 people who served with Kerry haven't convinced you that he is not to be trusted, 368 economists won't do the trick, either. You have already drank (sp) too much Kool-Aid.

If 264 people who served with Kerry haven't convinced you that he is not to be trusted, 368 economists won't do the trick, either. You have already drank (sp) too much Kool-Aid.

All the testimony I need about Kerry and his service is from my dad and his four years over in Vietnam; I don't need liars who have already been proven to be lying to tell me the truth. I trust my dad, period. :rolleyes:

I graduated with an economics degree, and after 4 years of putting up with it all, I learned one thing: economists are by-and-large morons.

The true definition of waste: A Cadillac driving over a cliff with two economists inside. Why? Because a Cadillac seats at least 4!

I can understand most economists being against Kerry. Hell, I am. But saying that they are pro-Bush would be a misstatement. Most economists, if they learned anything as economists would most likely be more for someone like Badnarik and the Libertarian Party, since Hayek was one of the forerunners to libertarian thinking and ideals in economics. Hayek would definitely be one of my heros.

This reminds me of something:

There was a book called "100 authors against Einstein."
His reply to the book was "Why one hundred? If I was wrong, one would have been enough."

I agree EZbake all the Economists I have heard, only on NPR not like I hang out with Econs.
ANyway they all agree that both Bush and Kerry have plans that will...coughfailcough....to decrease the deficit.
They just dont have reasonble economic plans.
Both of them Kerry and Bush.

Some 140m americans are protestants. Doesn't mean their right.

Somehow, 386 economists doesn't convince me either.

Some 140m americans are protestants. Doesn't mean their right.

Somehow, 386 economists doesn't convince me either.

Nobel prize winning economists commenting on fiscal policy is considerably differant than Protestants commenting on the state of Religion.

A scholar of religions commenting upon the state of a given religion is a better analogy.

Nobel prize winning economists commenting on fiscal policy is considerably differant than Protestants commenting on the state of Religion.

A scholar of religions commenting upon the state of a given religion is a better analogy.

Ok, then im sure there are thousands of clergy members, bishops and such, who believe in christianity. Still, doesnt mean they are right, and most likely they are wrong.

You could say they are biased, but so are these economists. They believe in their own ways of fixing the economy, they arent uber non-partisan.