We've had links here and Pelagius has confirmed that in most teaching departments studies show the party affiliation is between 80 to 90 percent of economists belonging to the Democratic Party. As a soft science, and with the built-in biases, I tend to enjoy the rhetoric of economists, but in the macro sense, they don't tend to predict better than anybody else.

It's not a logical fallacy when it's been demonstrated that the vast majority quoted to support something also belong to one party where the rhetoric is unbalanced.

That's hilarious.

As a product of the corrupt Chicago organization, it does not surprise me that Obamacans lie like a drunken sailor spends money, but some of it is downright entertaining.

If it is something more than just a typo, it is shameful. Time will tell.

What are you talking about dude? Economics is much more conservative than the social sciences. The predictive ability in economics is greater than that of any of the social sciences, and it's not even close, as evidenced by the explosion in demand for economist by private-sector firms.

more like 60%.

You know full well economists in academic departments are principally Democratic in their philosophy.

And look at the absurd predictions coming from the CBO, and tell me those prognostications are accurate.

Sure are a whole lot of "typos" in that report. Maybe the admin should hire a few of the AP's eleven Palin-dedicated fact checkers to help them out.

I suppose you have a reference point for that. And other than some outdated journals and my recollection of Pelagius who actually works presently in the field. I remember his citing a study showing an 80 percent disparity.

Are you talking about all economists, or economists in universities? If the former, I don't buy for a second that 60% are Democrats.

I'm speaking about the university level Democrats accounting for 80 percent, which what I believe was Pelagius's number.

You are right.

Business economists go for GOP.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/searc...sts+go+for+gop

Studying economics makes people more conservative!

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/...servative.html

academic economists:

58% Democrat
23% Republican

http://www2.sofi.su.se/wp/WP06-6.pdf

The three to one ratio doesn't surprise me. Where in the Swedish paper can I find the support? I don't feel like looking for it.

Check out the ratios here.

http://www.ratio.se/pdf/wp/dk_aw_voter.pdf

I just have to interject here: there is some wonderful unintentional comedy in watching you guys fall over yourselves debating Cali's completely irrelevant assertion that "virtually every" economist thinks Obama has accelerated recovery and slowed job losses.

I guess Noriel Roubini is in the minority.

Sorry to interrupt. Do carry on.

Absolutely nuts. I'm suprised how many depts have 0 Republicans.


p. 6

Goodness gracious Tex, finish reading your own links.

He's saying we need more of the same because the first stimulus was insufficient.

The others noted that a 2 to 1 ratio is grave cause for concern but a 5 to 1 ratio marginalizes the minority too significantly.

And as you noted, many departments had ZERO Republicans. Talk about experiencing a variety of ideas.

The Green Party is represented disproportionately and the Libertarians aren't even represented at all.

Note this comment, on page 24,

and the following observation:

Right, because the first one worked so well. Or maybe I missed that part: did he say the first stimulus accelerated the recovery and saved jobs? Is that what you read?

Why would he ask for a second one if the first one didn't do anything?

the philosophy is rather simple actually. More money has been spewing into the economy, but I don't notice any appreciable differences, but then again, I didn't participate in cash for clunkers, or didn't qualify as a first time home buyer, so those areas aren't affecting me or more clientele.

On one hand the Keynsians believe the government must inflate the economy by spewing money into it so that it doesn't spiral down further and if they pull the plug too soon it will deflate any way. That's what they argue in short.

On the other hand, that theory doesn't address whether the economy is capable of sustaining itself ever under this model, and what happens to inflation and how will the taxpayers afford the spending spree.

My observation is that this spiral is in large part systemic, our economic structure is rotting at the core, so any spending is artificial and will extend the length of recovery. The longer you delay hitting bottom, the longer it will take to get out of the trough.

It doesn't also address the problems with T Bills and taxation.

That would be my question to him. But you're welcome to answer it in his place.

You'd think if we're looking at double-digit inflation for the next 2 years (as he asserts we are) after already pumping $800B give-or-take into the economy, that might give a guy some pause in recommending we spend more.

Either way, reading his article, it's hard to make a case for how Obama's policies have sped up recovery and saved jobs. Unless of course one decides to just make up a "saved jobs" number, but Obama would never do that.

The questions which economists have not answered satisfactorily, is how to kickstart the economy to have internal, not government spending external, incentives to grow.

The super smart economists Chino and California love to believe in seem to believe if you spend a lot of money for a very long time, (a) it won't hurt to pay it back, (b) dollar devaluation is no problem in the grand scheme of things, and (c) there will be no dive once the faucet of the government spending is turned off and taxes go sky high.

That they singled out economics just highlights that they expect it to be more conservative.

The two intro econ classes at Harvard are taught by Republicans. I believe 50% of all the superstars are Republican (which itself is a symptom of discrimination; you have to be a superstar to survive if you're pub).

In any case, as an undergrad, I'd say about 80% of the models we studied showed that the free market equilibrium was the best solution. So teacher ideology matters less when everything is mathematicized.

My question with the stimulus or any type of Keynsian economics is how you improve capital items, infrastructure and create internal stimulus.

Right now, consumer confidence in a better tomorrow is at an all time low. The internal stimulus isn't there.

Part of the malaise is actually good. We need to start saving a lot more of our earnings.

and industry needs the ability to invest in better means of production. China is building new, high quality factories and means of production. The investment is so significant, we don't have the ability to catch up if we don't start.

But the assumptions are the rub, and the values to assume are based upon assumptions.

We are talking about minor percentage points which ultimately result in significant discrepancies.

Because the first one was way too small! Go figure!

What if you use generalized numbers like Y=A*L^gK^(1-g) with no actual values?

At some point assumptions and values have to be made, but I understand your point.

Translation: "Sorry that $50K investment didn't work out ma'am, but if you give me another $50K, I'm sure we can make it grow this time."

Bandits.

I usually ignore email forwards because their one step removed from spam, but this one made me chuckle.

So to honor Cali's and Chino's $800B-isn't-enough-we-need-more-and-more, I offer this email:

And raise minimum wage to about $25/hr.

Sign me up.

Hmm. So when economists suggested about $1.2 trillion in spending (not tax cuts) would be needed to get things going (and it is looking more and more like they were right), Texie then got the impression that would be roughly the same as advocating for a plan which would cost $40,000,000,000,000 (40 million x 1 million)?

Good thinking.

More on what a "Democrat" economist means:

The following is a Naomi Klein article:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/klein

Via the Corner:

And of course, Drudge tells us $6M went to Hillary's pollster Mark Penn.

I'm sure this is exactly what Keynes had in mind.

Dang, Bush messed things up beyond my wildest imagination.

You've got more humor than I imagined.

Going with the flow of economic thinking doesn't always work, does it?

So in your mind, Obama gets a complete pass for the utter failure of the stimulus package. I never knew you to be so generous during the Bush years, Chino.