US Economic Debate is a Sham

Azdak

I came across an interesting article on bloomberg.com which shows a stark disconnect between the smoke and thunder debate on the economy carried out by politicians and the views of professional economists themselves.

The report summarized responses to survey questions posed to the IGM Economic Experts panel by the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business. The panel is a group of diverse economic experts representing a cross-section of geography, political leanings and age. The goal is to "explore the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues. "

The results are striking.

Obama Stimulus: Did it succeed in reducing unemployment? 92% said Yes.

Obama Stimulus: Was it worth the cost? 50+% Yes, 33% uncertain, 15% disagree

Did the bank bailouts reduce unemployment? 100% Yes

Did Obama's energy policies cause gas prices to rise? 100% No

Will cutting taxes increase government revenue? 100% No

One would think, given the contentious debate on these issues carried out daily by government, that there would be equally contentious debate among the experts. Not so

In reality, there’s remarkable consensus among mainstream economists, including those from the left and right, on most major macroeconomic issues. The debate in Washington about economic policy is phony. It’s manufactured. And it’s entirely political.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-23/the-u-s-economic-policy-debate-is-a-sham.html
(article contains links to the actual survey data, and a listing of the 40 participants, along with their backgrounds and some comments).

MaraDiaz

This is in keeping with something I read not long ago about experts in economics suggesting a Roosevelt style New Deal to help America's economy, which is the exact opposite of what most people have been led to believe will help us.

Bahet

Trickle down doesn't work. Never has. Money isn't water. It actually trickles UP.

bathsheba_c

Yeah, I concentrated in economics, and I gotta say that this is old news. In fact, most of this is stuff economics figured out after World War I (i.e. increasing government spending can take the edge off recessions).

SwannySez

Diverse economic experts = university professors.

alpha2omega

Diverse economic experts = university professors.

LOL FTW!

fbmandy55

Diverse economic experts = university professors.

In Chicago nonetheless....

alpha2omega

Diverse economic experts = university professors.

In Chicago nonetheless....

LOL Too funny! FTWX2

DoingItNow2012

Diverse economic experts = university professors.

In Chicago nonetheless....

LOL Too funny! FTWX2

What does FTW mean? I don't get the Diverse economic experts = university professors either. The response follwoing gives me the feeling it is not a good thing? Or is it that a "duh, of course" kinda thing?

k8blujay2

Diverse economic experts = university professors.

In Chicago nonetheless....

LOL Too funny! FTWX2

What does FTW mean? I don't get the Diverse economic experts = university professors either. The response follwoing gives me the feeling it is not a good thing? Or is it that a "duh, of course" kinda thing?

FTW means For the win.... economic experts = university professors means that the experts are largely in academia and they play with theory rather than application...

LastSixtySix

Diverse economic experts = university professors.

In Chicago nonetheless....

LOL Too funny! FTWX2

Alpha2omega, fbmanny55, and SwannySez: How is your comment(s) suppose to be relevant to this discussion? Elaborate why you feel that way about the disconnect between economists and politicians instead of trying to stall communication by introducing irrelevant material. Perhaps you have some actual data to refute the article but (cough) I won't hold my breath.

Meantime, I will depend on peer reviewed and mathematical conclusions that economists depend on as more valid than politicians getting people to their side or the other and shouting at each other instead of communicating. It's nice for a show but does nothing to help anything.

As for your opinion about what diverse economists are or are not, that is an entirely separate opinion and you can start your own topic on a new thread.

-Debra

k8blujay2

Personally, and I have only had a tiny bit of economics in my studies... it was from a geographic standpoint.... I feel like if the stimulus was all that successful in reducing lost jobs, then we would have seen few numbers of unemployed... I will give him that it stalemated unemployment... and honestly, if we did things like Roosevelt did in the 30's, then we would have seen more things like the CCC instead of people just lining up to get their unemployment checks... but that's just my opinion.

MaraDiaz

Diverse economic experts = university professors.

Because it's better to rely on Fox News pundits and the word on the street over people who have spent decades studying the economy?

LOL! FTL!

k8blujay2

Diverse economic experts = university professors.

Because it's better to rely on Fox News pundits and the word on the street over people who have spent decades studying the economy?

LOL! FTL!

I don't think any one is saying trust pundits from any news station.... but there is a big difference between studying/debating the theory of economics (or really anything) and applying it. I know calculus and differential equations (can teach at the very least the former)... it doesn't mean that I know squat about being a physicist or an engineer (which is essentially the application of said math).

alpha2omega

I came across an interesting article on bloomberg.com which shows a stark disconnect between the smoke and thunder debate on the economy carried out by politicians and the views of professional economists themselves.

The report summarized responses to survey questions posed to the IGM Economic Experts panel by the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business. The panel is a group of diverse economic experts representing a cross-section of geography, political leanings and age. The goal is to "explore the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues. "

The results are striking.

Obama Stimulus: Did it succeed in reducing unemployment? 92% said Yes.

Obama Stimulus: Was it worth the cost? 50+% Yes, 33% uncertain, 15% disagree

Did the bank bailouts reduce unemployment? 100% Yes

Did Obama's energy policies cause gas prices to rise? 100% No

Will cutting taxes increase government revenue? 100% No

One would think, given the contentious debate on these issues carried out daily by government, that there would be equally contentious debate among the experts. Not so

In reality, there’s remarkable consensus among mainstream economists, including those from the left and right, on most major macroeconomic issues. The debate in Washington about economic policy is phony. It’s manufactured. And it’s entirely political.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-23/the-u-s-economic-policy-debate-is-a-sham.html
(article contains links to the actual survey data, and a listing of the 40 participants, along with their backgrounds and some comments).

Since it appears there is agreement among the "experts", which you have cited, would you say we should continue with the current economic policies that have contributed to the recent "recovery"?



This question was meant for the group in general so anyone can feel free to chime in.

bathsheba_c

I'm a little confused why people here think that Chicago economics professors would hold liberal viewpoints. They are extremely, extremely conservative. Also, just because someone is an economist doesn't mean that they are professor. The study was conducted in Chicago . . . on people visiting from all over the place.

Bahet

I'm a little confused why people here think that Chicago economics professors would hold liberal viewpoints. They are extremely, extremely conservative. Also, just because someone is an economist doesn't mean that they are professor. The study was conducted in Chicago . . . on people visiting from all over the place.

I'm a little confused why people tink that giving an opinion on something they obviously didn't read is a good idea. (Not you bath) If the person who tried to be funny with the "from Chicago" comment had bothered to read and look at who gave their opinions they would have seen that it was professors from MIT, Harvard, Yale, etc. It wasn't Bob Schmuck, econ grad student at Chicago Community College.

LastSixtySix

I came across an interesting article on bloomberg.com which shows a stark disconnect between the smoke and thunder debate on the economy carried out by politicians and the views of professional economists themselves.

The report summarized responses to survey questions posed to the IGM Economic Experts panel by the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business. The panel is a group of diverse economic experts representing a cross-section of geography, political leanings and age. The goal is to "explore the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues. "

The results are striking.

Obama Stimulus: Did it succeed in reducing unemployment? 92% said Yes.

Obama Stimulus: Was it worth the cost? 50+% Yes, 33% uncertain, 15% disagree

Did the bank bailouts reduce unemployment? 100% Yes

Did Obama's energy policies cause gas prices to rise? 100% No

Will cutting taxes increase government revenue? 100% No

One would think, given the contentious debate on these issues carried out daily by government, that there would be equally contentious debate among the experts. Not so

In reality, there’s remarkable consensus among mainstream economists, including those from the left and right, on most major macroeconomic issues. The debate in Washington about economic policy is phony. It’s manufactured. And it’s entirely political.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-23/the-u-s-economic-policy-debate-is-a-sham.html
(article contains links to the actual survey data, and a listing of the 40 participants, along with their backgrounds and some comments).

Since it appears there is agreement among the "experts", which you have cited, would you say we should continue with the current economic policies that have contributed to the recent "recovery"?

The vague phrase "Current economic policies" implies that the current set of problems was caused by the current occupier of the White House. If I presume incorrectly, my apologies and I'd love to hear some specific examples from you.

Meantime, I think that the only rational belief about the current set of economic problems is that The Economy is far too large and complicated to be totally screwed up by any one President or even Congress. Wall Street, on the other hand, damaged this country by speculation run rampant and is very capable of derailing not only one economy but an entire economic system. The total lack of regulation lead to the financial crisis we now experience. Stock markets are the ones systematically and coldly damaging the American economy in order to satisfy the profit interests of their global clients (outsourcing and slashing wages and benefits, etc.). It's hard not to get lost in all the smoke and mirrors in an election year, but we still have no answer for how to get this country's job engine going again and the stock market speculators of public companies like that just fine. Yet, the number of people working today is still below what it was twelve years ago!!! See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Employment_Changes_-_Total_Non-Farm_1970_to_Present.png

Too bad the complex financial disaster of run-away capitalism (greed) and the value average Americans place on overly-partisan politics that dominate debates today will require much more time to improve, let alone fix. Could they ever be fixed as long as so many Americans suspect and dis peer-reviewed scholarship and facts over ideology?

-Debra

Azdak

I'm a little confused why people here think that Chicago economics professors would hold liberal viewpoints. They are extremely, extremely conservative. Also, just because someone is an economist doesn't mean that they are professor. The study was conducted in Chicago . . . on people visiting from all over the place.

Even more confusing is why someone would mention they are "Chicago professors" when the survey asked people all over the country--it was conducted by someone in the U of Chicago business school.

Then again, given the tone of the comment, I suppose it's not surprising at all.

Azdak

The main purpose of the article was to point out the disconnect between the political machinations we see in the paper every day and the views of those who are the experts in their fields. It did not say that they all agreed 100%, nor was it meant to prove that they are all somehow omniscient about what to do about our current economic problems. (The survey pages list each economist, how they answered, their background, and any additional comments they made to clarify their answers, which allows for an even greater understanding--if understanding facts is something that is important to you).

As often happens with groups of professionals who have an in-depth knowledge of the subject, you have broad areas of consensus--along with areas of sharp disagreement.

Many of our politicians know that what they are saying in nonsense--some are just really that stupid. The cynical ones know that most Americans don't really care about facts any more (as evidenced by a number of comments in this thread). They also know that the national media, with it's need to meet news cycles, and slavish obsession with phony "equivalency" will not call them on their lies.

As a result our so-called "national debates" have become nothing more than superficial sloganeering. That's all we get because that is all we ask for.

It also points out that there ARE steps that could be taken that have a broad base of support, but action is being blocked--again for the most shallow and cynical of reasons.

alpha2omega

I came across an interesting article on bloomberg.com which shows a stark disconnect between the smoke and thunder debate on the economy carried out by politicians and the views of professional economists themselves.

The report summarized responses to survey questions posed to the IGM Economic Experts panel by the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business. The panel is a group of diverse economic experts representing a cross-section of geography, political leanings and age. The goal is to "explore the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues. "

The results are striking.

Obama Stimulus: Did it succeed in reducing unemployment? 92% said Yes.

Obama Stimulus: Was it worth the cost? 50+% Yes, 33% uncertain, 15% disagree

Did the bank bailouts reduce unemployment? 100% Yes

Did Obama's energy policies cause gas prices to rise? 100% No

Will cutting taxes increase government revenue? 100% No

One would think, given the contentious debate on these issues carried out daily by government, that there would be equally contentious debate among the experts. Not so

In reality, there’s remarkable consensus among mainstream economists, including those from the left and right, on most major macroeconomic issues. The debate in Washington about economic policy is phony. It’s manufactured. And it’s entirely political.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-23/the-u-s-economic-policy-debate-is-a-sham.html
(article contains links to the actual survey data, and a listing of the 40 participants, along with their backgrounds and some comments).

Since it appears there is agreement among the "experts", which you have cited, would you say we should continue with the current economic policies that have contributed to the recent "recovery"?

The vague phrase "Current economic policies" implies that the current set of problems was caused by the current occupier of the White House. If I presume incorrectly, my apologies and I'd love to hear some specific examples from you.

Meantime, I think that the only rational belief about the current set of economic problems is that The Economy is far too large and complicated to be totally screwed up by any one President or even Congress. Wall Street, on the other hand, damaged this country by speculation run rampant and is very capable of derailing not only one economy but an entire economic system. The total lack of regulation lead to the financial crisis we now experience. Stock markets are the ones systematically and coldly damaging the American economy in order to satisfy the profit interests of their global clients (outsourcing and slashing wages and benefits, etc.). It's hard not to get lost in all the smoke and mirrors in an election year, but we still have no answer for how to get this country's job engine going again and the stock market speculators of public companies like that just fine. Yet, the number of people working today is still below what it was twelve years ago!!! See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Employment_Changes_-_Total_Non-Farm_1970_to_Present.png

Too bad the complex financial disaster of run-away capitalism (greed) and the value average Americans place on overly-partisan politics that dominate debates today will require much more time to improve, let alone fix. Could they ever be fixed as long as so many Americans suspect and dis peer-reviewed scholarship and facts over ideology?

-Debra

It's not the stock market that is damaging the American system. Companies on the the stock market are publicly owned entities with shareholders, such as yourself, if you happen to own mutual funds in some type of retirement fund. The companies answer to us the shareholders who expect the company to generate value. To do this, it must cut costs to retain shareholder value, especially in a recession. Not only are we dependent on this, as shareholders, but so too do the employees of these companies that have a vested interest in wanting to keep the company in business since it is their livelyhood. If your issue is with Wall street, then you must blame every average american who holds stock in these companies, since value is what each of them is expecting from these corporations.

Ronald Reagan inherited a significant recession and yet the private sector(Wall Street) created millions of jobs during the last year of his first term. What did Reagan do so differently that led to such significant job growth? Im interested in hearing your explanation to that.

Azdak

Diverse economic experts = university professors.

Because it's better to rely on Fox News pundits and the word on the street over people who have spent decades studying the economy?

LOL! FTL!

I don't think any one is saying trust pundits from any news station.... but there is a big difference between studying/debating the theory of economics (or really anything) and applying it. I know calculus and differential equations (can teach at the very least the former)... it doesn't mean that I know squat about being a physicist or an engineer (which is essentially the application of said math).

Given that you have at least made an attempt at a serious reply, I will respond:

This is from the IGM website and describes the panel:

To that end, our panel was chosen to include distinguished experts with a keen interest in public policy from the major areas of economics, to be geographically diverse, and to include Democrats, Republicans and Independents as well as older and younger scholars. The panel members are all senior faculty at the most elite research universities in the United States. The panel includes Nobel Laureates, John Bates Clark Medalists, fellows of the Econometric society, past Presidents of both the American Economics Association and American Finance Association, past Democratic and Republican members of the President's Council of Economics, and past and current editors of the leading journals in the profession. This selection process has the advantage of not only providing a set of panelists whose names will be familiar to other economists and the media, but also delivers a group with impeccable qualifications to speak on public policy matters.

If you cannot see the value in the insights of people with these qualifications--and that doesn't mean accepting what they have to say uncritically--I am not sure exactly what you are looking for.

Physicists and engineers might use math, but they are separate disciplines, so I don't think that analogy applies. And I also don't see how designing a machine and then testing to see how it works is any different from an economist who has worked to develop public policy and has had equal experience at empirically studying its effects.

Azdak

It's not the stock market that is damaging the American system. Companies on the the stock market are publicly owned entities with shareholders, such as yourself, if you happen to own mutual funds in some type of retirement fund. The companies answer to us the shareholders who expect the company to generate value. To do this, it must cut costs to retain shareholder value, especially in a recession. Not only are we dependent on this, as shareholders, but so too do the employees of these companies that have a vested interest in wanting to keep the company in business since it is their livelyhood. If your issue is with Wall street, then you must blame every average american who holds stock in these companies, since value is what each of them is expecting from these corporations.

Ronald Reagan inherited a significant recession and yet the private sector(Wall Street) created millions of jobs during the last year of his first term. What did Reagan do so differently that led to such significant job growth? Im interested in hearing your explanation to that.

I am sticking with your last comment, because I do not wish to argue the other commenter's point. I don't disagree with your comments about Wall St and stocks, but I think you are missing the point entirely.

What brought down the economy were the dishonest and reckless financial manipulations of the large financial institutions (one the primary reasons anyhow). These maneuvers had nothing to do with "building shareholder value" the way you described. Nothing to do with cutting costs, increasing productivity, increasing the true value and worth of the company.

It was a shell game, a paper fantasy. THAT'S the problem. And it is still continuing today (see the LIBOR fraud). More and more of our economy is being dominated by what Stiglitz describes as "rent-seekers"--people and companies who use various schemes to grab a larger share of the pie, so to speak, without enlarging the size of the pie. Is a gross distortion of the market system. When people argue against "Wall St" and "the 1%" that's primarily who they are attacking. (Yes, there are some on the far left who are anti-capitalist by nature and make broad-based attacks on "business" in general., but I don't take them seriously and do not support their positions).

As far as reagan goes, that's beyond the scope of this thread. Normally, I don't spend too much time in Wikipedia, but I would recommend the entry on "Reaganomics" which I thought was a balanced view and also provided some additional references.

alpha2omega

It's not the stock market that is damaging the American system. Companies on the the stock market are publicly owned entities with shareholders, such as yourself, if you happen to own mutual funds in some type of retirement fund. The companies answer to us the shareholders who expect the company to generate value. To do this, it must cut costs to retain shareholder value, especially in a recession. Not only are we dependent on this, as shareholders, but so too do the employees of these companies that have a vested interest in wanting to keep the company in business since it is their livelyhood. If your issue is with Wall street, then you must blame every average american who holds stock in these companies, since value is what each of them is expecting from these corporations.

Ronald Reagan inherited a significant recession and yet the private sector(Wall Street) created millions of jobs during the last year of his first term. What did Reagan do so differently that led to such significant job growth? Im interested in hearing your explanation to that.

I am sticking with your last comment, because I do not wish to argue the other commenter's point. I don't disagree with your comments about Wall St and stocks, but I think you are missing the point entirely.

What brought down the economy were the dishonest and reckless financial manipulations of the large financial institutions (one the primary reasons anyhow). These maneuvers had nothing to do with "building shareholder value" the way you described. Nothing to do with cutting costs, increasing productivity, increasing the true value and worth of the company.

It was a shell game, a paper fantasy. THAT'S the problem. And it is still continuing today (see the LIBOR fraud). More and more of our economy is being dominated by what Stiglitz describes as "rent-seekers"--people and companies who use various schemes to grab a larger share of the pie, so to speak, without enlarging the size of the pie. Is a gross distortion of the market system. When people argue against "Wall St" and "the 1%" that's primarily who they are attacking. (Yes, there are some on the far left who are anti-capitalist by nature and make broad-based attacks on "business" in general., but I don't take them seriously and do not support their positions).

As far as reagan goes, that's beyond the scope of this thread. Normally, I don't spend too much time in Wikipedia, but I would recommend the entry on "Reaganomics" which I thought was a balanced view and also provided some additional references.

If you are referring to the securitization of mortgages as the the paper fantasy, than I do agree with you in that it played a significant role, if not the primary role in the eventual demise of the housing market. However, I would argue that it indeed was done to increase shareholder value because the subprime mortgages were worthless. The banks new it and so did the regulators who insisted they be issued.

So then how does a company with millions of dollars of worthless paper create value? Mortgage backed securities. I am not defending this act by the banks in that I don't agree with what they did but it is quite evident that they alone cannot be held responsible for the destruction of the housing sector. The roots to this disaster began back in the 70's with the Community Reinvestment Act and was made worse in 1994 with changes made to the CRA.

To your original point. No reasonal person could disagree with the results of survey, however, it is because the right questions were not asked.

I would want to know:

Obama Stimulus: Did it succeed in keeping unemployment under 8% like the President promised it would?

Did the oil moratorium and decision to not build the pipeline lower unemployment?

Did Obama's monetary policies cause gas prices to rise?

Will raising taxes increase job growth?

LastSixtySix

I came across an interesting article on bloomberg.com which shows a stark disconnect between the smoke and thunder debate on the economy carried out by politicians and the views of professional economists themselves.

The report summarized responses to survey questions posed to the IGM Economic Experts panel by the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business. The panel is a group of diverse economic experts representing a cross-section of geography, political leanings and age. The goal is to "explore the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues. "

The results are striking.

Obama Stimulus: Did it succeed in reducing unemployment? 92% said Yes.

Obama Stimulus: Was it worth the cost? 50+% Yes, 33% uncertain, 15% disagree

Did the bank bailouts reduce unemployment? 100% Yes

Did Obama's energy policies cause gas prices to rise? 100% No

Will cutting taxes increase government revenue? 100% No

One would think, given the contentious debate on these issues carried out daily by government, that there would be equally contentious debate among the experts. Not so

In reality, there’s remarkable consensus among mainstream economists, including those from the left and right, on most major macroeconomic issues. The debate in Washington about economic policy is phony. It’s manufactured. And it’s entirely political.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-23/the-u-s-economic-policy-debate-is-a-sham.html
(article contains links to the actual survey data, and a listing of the 40 participants, along with their backgrounds and some comments).

Since it appears there is agreement among the "experts", which you have cited, would you say we should continue with the current economic policies that have contributed to the recent "recovery"?

The vague phrase "Current economic policies" implies that the current set of problems was caused by the current occupier of the White House. If I presume incorrectly, my apologies and I'd love to hear some specific examples from you.

Meantime, I think that the only rational belief about the current set of economic problems is that The Economy is far too large and complicated to be totally screwed up by any one President or even Congress. Wall Street, on the other hand, damaged this country by speculation run rampant and is very capable of derailing not only one economy but an entire economic system. The total lack of regulation lead to the financial crisis we now experience. Stock markets are the ones systematically and coldly damaging the American economy in order to satisfy the profit interests of their global clients (outsourcing and slashing wages and benefits, etc.). It's hard not to get lost in all the smoke and mirrors in an election year, but we still have no answer for how to get this country's job engine going again and the stock market speculators of public companies like that just fine. Yet, the number of people working today is still below what it was twelve years ago!!! See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Employment_Changes_-_Total_Non-Farm_1970_to_Present.png

Too bad the complex financial disaster of run-away capitalism (greed) and the value average Americans place on overly-partisan politics that dominate debates today will require much more time to improve, let alone fix. Could they ever be fixed as long as so many Americans suspect and dis peer-reviewed scholarship and facts over ideology?

-Debra

It's not the stock market that is damaging the American system. Companies on the the stock market are publicly owned entities with shareholders, such as yourself, if you happen to own mutual funds in some type of retirement fund. The companies answer to us the shareholders who expect the company to generate value. To do this, it must cut costs to retain shareholder value, especially in a recession. Not only are we dependent on this, as shareholders, but so too do the employees of these companies that have a vested interest in wanting to keep the company in business since it is their livelyhood. If your issue is with Wall street, then you must blame every average american who holds stock in these companies, since value is what each of them is expecting from these corporations.

Ronald Reagan inherited a significant recession and yet the private sector(Wall Street) created millions of jobs during the last year of his first term. What did Reagan do so differently that led to such significant job growth? Im interested in hearing your explanation to that.

The Stock Market is much more than you indicate - it is global in nature and it is anational and apolitical. It is NOT the sum of the services and goods that are produced in this country every day and it is hardly driven by only Americans. The Stock Market is a shell game of fantasies devoid of goods or services and which has no desire to be regulated or overseen in any way shape or form. It has nothing to do with reality or with the real economy but affects it tremendously. In fact, the Stock Market could care less if its money is in an American company or a Chinese one - only that it profits more and more, again and again. In order to satisfy the profit interests of the shareholders, this funny-money system is running roughshod over any real market economy of goods and services, which suffer terribly because of it.

It's not the whole problem but a big part of it. In the us-versus-them rhetoric of the political campaign, which side is speaking more for oversight and equity for The Market forces that would prefer no one look too closely? It's not one administration or another that caused the problem. The election is important because who is elected sets the laws and through law is the only way we can begin to fix or exacerbate the economic problem facing us.

A random thought here. In about, 2008 the CEO for Wall Market was paid roughly $26 million, and the CEO for Costco was paid $400,000. See any disconnect here? Who's workers are better paid of the two? How much is enough? These are just two comparisons. Bottom line, jobs suffer with the current situation and the more we can call out the politicians and the media when they don't call out the inconsistencies, the better. Bravo for the article that called out the economic debate sham.

-Debra

MaraDiaz

Diverse economic experts = university professors.

Because it's better to rely on Fox News pundits and the word on the street over people who have spent decades studying the economy?

LOL! FTL!

I don't think any one is saying trust pundits from any news station.... but there is a big difference between studying/debating the theory of economics (or really anything) and applying it. I know calculus and differential equations (can teach at the very least the former)... it doesn't mean that I know squat about being a physicist or an engineer (which is essentially the application of said math).

Yep, there is a difference, although non-political hot button fields rely on academics all the time and do okay. We better hope so, anyway, or that Hadron Collider might just create a black hole and suck us all in after all.

In general, though, Americans have a hatred for academia that any dictatorship would be proud of, and that instant knee jerk reaction of dismissing anything they say regarding the economy and politics is one of the things that really gets on my nerves.

bathsheba_c

Really, this is no different than the climate change debate, if you think about it. Scientists are pretty much in agreement that the climate is changing. They are still figuring out the exact mechanisms and what it is possible to do about it, but only in politics is there disagreement over whether or not it is happening at all.

Azdak

Diverse economic experts = university professors.

Because it's better to rely on Fox News pundits and the word on the street over people who have spent decades studying the economy?

LOL! FTL!

I don't think any one is saying trust pundits from any news station.... but there is a big difference between studying/debating the theory of economics (or really anything) and applying it. I know calculus and differential equations (can teach at the very least the former)... it doesn't mean that I know squat about being a physicist or an engineer (which is essentially the application of said math).

Yep, there is a difference, although non-political hot button fields rely on academics all the time and do okay. We better hope so, anyway, or that Hadron Collider might just create a black hole and suck us all in after all.

In general, though, Americans have a hatred for academia that any dictatorship would be proud of, and that instant knee jerk reaction of dismissing anything they say regarding the economy and politics is one of the things that really gets on my nerves.

I don't know that it is a hatred for academia as much as a form of tribalism--except that instead of clan or family ties, people are forming tribes based on ideology.

People have always tended to be attracted and form groups with others who think like them, but this is different. The demand for loyalty to the "tribe" had increased to where reality must be filtered and bent to conform to the ideological parameters of the tribe. Instead of opinions and ideas being shaped in response to facts and empirical observation, the ideological points have become fixed and only those facts that support the ideology are allowed to pass through the filter.

LastSixtySix

Being skeptical is fine until things no longer work, when things are entrenched and nothing moves forward. This happens at all levels - countries stall as well as conversations - and a non-moving target becomes a lot easier to hit. Sense is desired more than skepticism these days. In order to get things moving again, we need not only good reasons to believe an idea but also good reasons to reject an idea.

When cynics rebuff out of hand what scientists have to teach us without good reason, the fight becomes more important than the outcome.

-Debra

fbmandy55

Really, this is no different than the climate change debate, if you think about it. Scientists are pretty much in agreement that the climate is changing. They are still figuring out the exact mechanisms and what it is possible to do about it, but only in politics is there disagreement over whether or not it is happening at all.

The climate has been changing since the beginning of time, but that's off the topic. At the same time, The FDA has stated that second hand smoke causes cancer based on one single study. Of many studies done at that time to make their conclusion and official statement, all of the other studies suggested that the risks of second hand smoke were so minimal, that there was nearly no risk. So why did the FDA choose one study out of several that disagreed?

The government, or any study will always be biased. I take them all with a grain of salt until I have more than some agency telling me what I should do or think. Scientists usually have an agenda, professors have an agenda just as you and I have our own opinions and can even let our subconscious override our rational thinking.

doorki

I came across an interesting article on bloomberg.com which shows a stark disconnect between the smoke and thunder debate on the economy carried out by politicians and the views of professional economists themselves.

The report summarized responses to survey questions posed to the IGM Economic Experts panel by the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business. The panel is a group of diverse economic experts representing a cross-section of geography, political leanings and age. The goal is to "explore the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues. "

The results are striking.

Obama Stimulus: Did it succeed in reducing unemployment? 92% said Yes.

Obama Stimulus: Was it worth the cost? 50+% Yes, 33% uncertain, 15% disagree

Did the bank bailouts reduce unemployment? 100% Yes

Did Obama's energy policies cause gas prices to rise? 100% No

Will cutting taxes increase government revenue? 100% No

One would think, given the contentious debate on these issues carried out daily by government, that there would be equally contentious debate among the experts. Not so

In reality, there’s remarkable consensus among mainstream economists, including those from the left and right, on most major macroeconomic issues. The debate in Washington about economic policy is phony. It’s manufactured. And it’s entirely political.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-23/the-u-s-economic-policy-debate-is-a-sham.html
(article contains links to the actual survey data, and a listing of the 40 participants, along with their backgrounds and some comments).

Since it appears there is agreement among the "experts", which you have cited, would you say we should continue with the current economic policies that have contributed to the recent "recovery"?

The vague phrase "Current economic policies" implies that the current set of problems was caused by the current occupier of the White House. If I presume incorrectly, my apologies and I'd love to hear some specific examples from you.

Meantime, I think that the only rational belief about the current set of economic problems is that The Economy is far too large and complicated to be totally screwed up by any one President or even Congress. Wall Street, on the other hand, damaged this country by speculation run rampant and is very capable of derailing not only one economy but an entire economic system. The total lack of regulation lead to the financial crisis we now experience. Stock markets are the ones systematically and coldly damaging the American economy in order to satisfy the profit interests of their global clients (outsourcing and slashing wages and benefits, etc.). It's hard not to get lost in all the smoke and mirrors in an election year, but we still have no answer for how to get this country's job engine going again and the stock market speculators of public companies like that just fine. Yet, the number of people working today is still below what it was twelve years ago!!! See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Employment_Changes_-_Total_Non-Farm_1970_to_Present.png

Too bad the complex financial disaster of run-away capitalism (greed) and the value average Americans place on overly-partisan politics that dominate debates today will require much more time to improve, let alone fix. Could they ever be fixed as long as so many Americans suspect and dis peer-reviewed scholarship and facts over ideology?

-Debra

It's not the stock market that is damaging the American system. Companies on the the stock market are publicly owned entities with shareholders, such as yourself, if you happen to own mutual funds in some type of retirement fund. The companies answer to us the shareholders who expect the company to generate value. To do this, it must cut costs to retain shareholder value, especially in a recession. Not only are we dependent on this, as shareholders, but so too do the employees of these companies that have a vested interest in wanting to keep the company in business since it is their livelyhood. If your issue is with Wall street, then you must blame every average american who holds stock in these companies, since value is what each of them is expecting from these corporations.

Ronald Reagan inherited a significant recession and yet the private sector(Wall Street) created millions of jobs during the last year of his first term. What did Reagan do so differently that led to such significant job growth? Im interested in hearing your explanation to that.

The Stock Market is much more than you indicate - it is global in nature and it is anational and apolitical. It is NOT the sum of the services and goods that are produced in this country every day and it is hardly driven by only Americans. The Stock Market is a shell game of fantasies devoid of goods or services and which has no desire to be regulated or overseen in any way shape or form. It has nothing to do with reality or with the real economy but affects it tremendously. In fact, the Stock Market could care less if its money is in an American company or a Chinese one - only that it profits more and more, again and again. In order to satisfy the profit interests of the shareholders, this funny-money system is running roughshod over any real market economy of goods and services, which suffer terribly because of it.

It's not the whole problem but a big part of it. In the us-versus-them rhetoric of the political campaign, which side is speaking more for oversight and equity for The Market forces that would prefer no one look too closely? It's not one administration or another that caused the problem. The election is important because who is elected sets the laws and through law is the only way we can begin to fix or exacerbate the economic problem facing us.

A random thought here. In about, 2008 the CEO for Wall Market was paid roughly $26 million, and the CEO for Costco was paid $400,000. See any disconnect here? Who's workers are better paid of the two? How much is enough? These are just two comparisons. Bottom line, jobs suffer with the current situation and the more we can call out the politicians and the media when they don't call out the inconsistencies, the better. Bravo for the article that called out the economic debate sham.

-Debra

The stock market as a whole is not what is damaging the US economic system. The sale of stock is what enables companies to raise capital in order to expand, conduct further R&D, increase capacity, etc. The issue with some Wall Street firms is that there is so little regulation that they are able to rig their books to hide debt. This is because they are smarter than the regulators because they pay more and attract the best talent. Also, the expansion of new, more complicated products that were not fully understood before being approved contributed to the issue. I will also tell you that Wall Street is just as unhappy about the current economic conditions as everyone else because volume is dropping significantly. No trading leads to reduced opportunity as well as increased risk. Trading firms do much better with a robust economy with an active market in which to be able to invest.