The full economists' statement on Barack Obama's economic proposals and a complete list of economists who support it follows:

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Barack Obama argues that his proposals to raise tax rates and halt international trade agreements would benefit the American economy. They would do nothing of the sort. Economic analysis and historical experience show that they would do the opposite. They would reduce economic growth and decrease the number of jobs in America. Moreover, with the credit crunch, the housing slump, and high energy prices weakening the U.S. economy, his proposals run a high risk of throwing the economy into a deep recession. It was exactly such misguided tax hikes and protectionism, enacted when the U.S. economy was weak in the early 1930s, that greatly increased the severity of the Great Depression.

We are very concerned with Barack Obama's opposition to trade agreements such as the pending one with Colombia, the new one with Central America, or the established one with Canada and Mexico. Exports from the United States to other countries create jobs for Americans. Imports make goods available to Americans at lower prices and are a particular benefit to families and individuals with low incomes. International trade is also a powerful source of strength in a weak economy. In the second quarter of this year, for example, increased international trade did far more to stimulate the U.S. economy than the federal government's "stimulus" package.

Ironically, rather than supporting international trade, Barack Obama is now proposing yet another so-called stimulus package, which would do very little to grow the economy. And his proposal to finance the package with higher taxes on oil would raise oil prices directly and by reducing exploration and production.

We are equally concerned with his proposals to increase tax rates on labor income and investment. His dividend and capital gains tax increases would reduce investment and cut into the savings of millions of Americans. His proposals to increase income and payroll tax rates would discourage the formation and expansion of small businesses and reduce employment and take-home pay, as would his mandates on firms to provide expensive health insurance.

After hearing such economic criticism of his proposals, Barack Obama has apparently suggested to some people that he might postpone his tax increases, perhaps to 2010. But it is a mistake to think that postponing such tax increases would prevent their harmful effect on the economy today. The prospect of such tax rate increases in 2010 is already a drag on the economy. Businesses considering whether to hire workers today and expand their operations have time horizons longer than a year or two, so the prospect of higher taxes starting in 2009 or 2010 reduces hiring and investment in 2008.

In sum, Barack Obama's economic proposals are wrong for the American economy. They defy both economic reason and economic experience.

Robert Barro, Harvard University

Gary Becker, University of Chicago

Sanjai Bhagat, University of Colorado

Michael Block, University of Arizona

Brock Blomberg, Claremont-McKenna University

Michael Bordo, Rutgers University

Michael Boskin, Stanford University

Ike Brannon, McCain-Palin 2008

James Buchanan, George Mason University

Todd Buchholtz, Two Oceans Fund

Charles Calomiris, Columbia University

Jim Carter, Vienna VA

Barry Chiswick, University of Illinois at Chicago

John Cogan, Hoover Institution

Kathleen Cooper, Southern Methodist University

Ted Covey, McLean VA

Dan Crippen, former CBO Director

Mario Crucini, Vanderbilt

Steve Davis, University of Chicago

Christopher DeMuth, American Enterprise Institute

William Dewald, Ohio State University

Frank Diebold, University of Pennsylvania

Isaac Ehrlich, State University of New York at Buffalo

Paul Evans, Ohio State University

Dan Feenberg, NBER

Martin Feldstein, Harvard University

Eric Fisher, California Polytechnic State University

Kristin Forbes, MIT

Timothy Fuerst, Bowling Green State University

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Hudson Institute

Paul Gregory, University of Houston

Earl Grinols, Baylor University

Rik Hafer, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville

Gary Hansen, UCLA

Eric Hanushek, Hoover Institutions

Kevin Hassett, American Enterprise Institute

Arlene Holen, Technology Policy Institute

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain-Palin 2008

Glenn Hubbard, Columbia University

Owen Irvine, Michigan State University

Mike Jensen, Harvard University

Steven Kaplan, University of Chicago

Robert King, Boston University

Meir Kohn, Dartmouth

Marvin Kosters, American Enterprise Institute

Anne Krueger, Johns Hopkins University

Phil Levy, American Enterprise Institute

Larry Lindsey, The Lindsey Group

Paul W. MacAvoy. Yale University

John Makin, American Enterprise Institute

Burton Malkiel, Princeton University

Bennett McCallum, Carnegie-Mellon University

Paul McCracken, University of Michigan

Will Melick, Kenyon College

Allan Meltzer, Carnegie-Mellon University

Enrique Mendoza, University of Maryland

Jim Miller, George Mason University

Michael Moore, George Washington University

Robert Mundell, Columbia University

Tim Muris, George Mason University

Kevin Murphy, University of Chicago

Richard Muth, Emory University

Charles Nelson, University of Washington

Bill Niskanen, Cato Institute

June O'Neill, Baruch College, CUNY

Lydia Ortega, San Jose State University

Steve Parente, University of Minnesota

William Poole, University of Delaware

Michael Porter, Harvard University

Barry Poulson, University of Colorado, Boulder

Edward Prescott, Arizona State University

Kenneth Rogoff, Harvard University

Richard Roll, UCLA

Harvey Rosen, Princeton University

Robert Rossana, Wayne State University

Mark Rush, University of Florida

Tom Saving, Texas A&M University

Anna Schwartz, NBER

George Shultz, Stanford University

Chester Spatt, Carnegie-Mellon University

David Spencer, Brigham Young University

Beryl Sprinkle, Former Chair Council of Economic Advisers

Houston Stokes, University of Illinois in Chicago

Robert Tamura, Clemson University

Jack Tatum, Indiana State University

John Taylor, Stanford University

Richard Vedder, Ohio University

William B. Walstad, University of Nebraska

Murray Weidenbaum, Washington University in St. Louis

Arnold Zellner, University of Chicago

That there is a shitload of folks!  :o :o :o

Sickness Unto Debt
By Ron Paul
Created 10/13/2008 - 11:01am

One of the burning questions regarding the recently passed bailout, and the one that almost no one has bothered to answer, is how the government intends to pay for it. Governments have three main methods by which they can raise funds: taxation, printing new money, and debt. As our $10 trillion national debt shows, the federal government has always enjoyed raising money by issuing new debt. Money is gained upfront, while the cost of repaying that debt is pushed onto future generations.

This method is especially favored today, since imposing $700 billion worth of taxes would lead to widespread public dissatisfaction. When the cost of all the recent bailouts plus the cost of all the new lending facilities the Federal Reserve has initiated are added together, we quickly reach a figure in the trillions of dollars. Even with the debt ceiling being raised to $11.3 trillion, the issuance of debt alone cannot begin to cover the cost of all the bailouts in which the government is engaged. Every indication is that the government will use both debt and inflation in its attempt to keep the economy running at full speed.

Debt financing has begun in earnest, as the national debt has increased $600 billion over the past three weeks, and most of that increase came even before the $700 billion bailout bill was passed. I fully expect that trend to continue in the near future and would not be surprised if we see another debt-limit increase slipped into another economic stimulus package that might be passed before the new year. Now that our foreign creditors are less willing to purchase our debt, what debt we cannot sell to foreigners will be monetized through the Federal Reserve, resulting in increased inflation.

In fact, money supply data for the narrowest measure, the adjusted monetary base, show an unprecedented increase, far higher than when Chairman Alan Greenspan attempted to reflate us out of trouble after the dot-com stock bubble burst. That intervention on Greenspan's part, pumping in liquidity and driving interest rates down, led to the real estate bubble, and Chairman Ben Bernanke unfortunately seems to be following the same script as his predecessor in resorting to credit creation and low interest rates. Even were this effort to succeed, it would only delay the inevitable. In order for the economy to return to normal, the Federal Reserve must cease the creation of new credit, overvalued assets must be allowed to fall in price, and malinvested resources must be allowed to liquidate and be put to use in more productive sectors.

The government's reaction to the credit crisis is based on the erroneous belief that the rate of economic growth over the past 10 to 15 years was the result of natural free-market processes, which is not the case. Rates of economic growth during the dot-com and real estate booms were clearly indicative of an overheated economy, and any attempt to try to stimulate the economy to return to such rapid growth will fail. Rather than allowing asset bubbles to pop and malinvested resources to liquidate, Federal Reserve monetary policy has attempted to pump more and more new money and credit into the system to try, in vain, to sustain the economic boom.

The monetary base jumping by such a large margin is an indicator that the Federal Reserve has not learned from its mistakes and is hoping to get out of this economic downturn by creating even more credit out of thin air. With such large increases in the monetary base and with banks legally able to hold zero reserves, the vaunted money multiplier effect could theoretically reach infinity. If our policymakers fail to come to their senses, there is a real danger that we could end up in a hyperinflationary crisis such as the ones that beset Germany in the 1920s and Argentina and Zimbabwe in more recent decades

The common measure of inflation, the consumer price index, has been so manipulated over the years that it cannot be trusted to be an accurate indicator of the true effect of inflation on people's pocketbooks. This is especially true of “core inflation,” which eliminates food and energy prices, the two staples that are most important to every American. When the CPI figure is computed using the original method of calculation, it comes out to more than 10 percent per year, which is a more accurate indicator of the inflation being felt by middle-class Americans.

For years, I pointed to the now-discontinued M3 money supply figure, the broadest measure of the total money supply, and remarked how its rate of growth far outpaced the officially reported rate of inflation. Since inflation is chronically underreported, I continue to view money supply figures as a more accurate indicator of the true direction of prices. Now that the monetary base has spiked so dramatically, the result will be seen over the next few months as this new credit works its way through the system, resulting in significantly higher inflation. Unfortunately, because M3 is no longer reported, the full effect of this inflation on the U.S. economy will go unreported in official statistics.

Our government has lived beyond its means for decades. We now face a crucial juncture, at which we determine whether to continue down the path of debt, inflation, and government intervention or choose to return to the economics of the free market, which have been ignored for almost a century. Increased debt leads to higher taxes on future generations, while increased inflation diminishes the purchasing power of American families and destroys the dollar. No society has ever been achieved prosperity through indebtedness or inflation, and the United States is no exception. We cannot afford to continue our current policies of monetary expansion and unending bailouts. Unless we return to sound monetary policy, sharply reduce government expenditures, and realize that the government cannot act as a lender of last resort, we will drive our economy to ruin.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

I won't argue that 100 is a big, round number.  But the Economist Magazine did a survey of 683 economists and found that they overwhelmingly favored Obama's plan:


Quote:

Where the candidates’ positions are more clearly articulated, Mr Obama scores better on nearly every issue: promoting fiscal discipline, energy policy, reducing the number of people without health insurance, controlling health-care costs, reforming financial regulation and boosting long-run economic growth. Twice as many economists think Mr McCain’s plan would be bad or very bad for long-run growth as Mr Obama’s. Given how much focus Mr McCain has put on his plan’s benefits for growth, this last is quite a repudiation. Mr McCain gets his highest mark, an average of 3.5 and a clear advantage over Mr Obama, for his position on free trade and globalisation. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Five Nobel winning economists support McCain?  Nice. There are at least five that support Obama (Solow, Heckman, Stiglitz, Phelps, and McFadden).  Obama has 61 Nobel winners in science supporting him - far more than any candidate ever.

monty-from your sources website:


Quote:

About The Economist • About our History It is not only The Economist's name that people find baffling. Here are some other common questions. First, why does it call itself a newspaper? Even when The Economist incorporated the Bankers' Gazette and Railway Monitor from 1845 to 1932, it also described itself as "a political, literary and general newspaper". It still does so because, in addition to offering analysis and opinion, it tries in each issue to cover the main events—business and political—of the week. It goes to press on Thursdays and, printed simultaneously in six countries, is available in most of the world's main cities the following day or soon after. Readers everywhere get the same editorial matter. The advertisements differ. The running order of the sections, and sometimes the cover, also differ. But the words are the same, except that each week readers in Britain get a few extra pages devoted to British news. Why is it anonymous? Many hands write The Economist, but it speaks with a collective voice. Leaders are discussed, often disputed, each week in meetings that are open to all members of the editorial staff. Journalists often co-operate on articles. And some articles are heavily edited. The main reason for anonymity, however, is a belief that what is written is more important than who writes it. As Geoffrey Crowther, editor from 1938 to 1956, put it, anonymity keeps the editor "not the master but the servant of something far greater than himself. You can call that ancestor-worship if you wish, but it gives to the paper an astonishing momentum of thought and principle." Who owns The Economist? Since 1928, half the shares have been owned by the Financial Times, a subsidiary of Pearson, the other half by a group of independent shareholders, including many members of the staff. The editor's independence is guaranteed by the existence of a board of trustees, which formally appoints him and without whose permission he cannot be removed.

I'm sorry, but I don't subscribe to what I highlighted in bold.

It's OK, Obama just wants to spread the wealth.  What a nice guy.

Your welcome to disagree with the philosophy of The Economist - it is one of the most respected economic publications, but it is not quite infallible.  They have been around for a long time, and IMO are worried more about being right and preserving their good name than in American politics.

Perhaps you would prefer an article from the Wall Street Journal, signed by 3 non-anonymous writers?  Here's "Why Obama's Health Plan Is Better" by D. Cutler, J. Delong and A. Marciarille:
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Shawn,

In looking over the list of economists who are undersigned to the article I don't find the preponderance of them are from conservative institutions.  It appears to me to be pretty widespread.  While I am not an economist I know how to balance a budget for a business as well as at home, and I can't make Obama's numbers work.  Not real sure about McCain's either, but I'm much more inclined to his policies.

Mel,

I am not a Ron Paul supporter for a number of reasons, but economically I think he is one of the best that was in the running.  I think he would make an excellent Sec Treas.

Jerry

Callico wrote on Oct 13^th, 2008 at 11:06pm:

Shawn, In looking over the list of economists who are undersigned to the article I don't find the preponderance of them are from conservative institutions.  It appears to me to be pretty widespread.

Exactly, that's why I found it interesting.  If you look at the list of 683 that monty mentions, you'll find a definite left slant to the group as a whole, so it's no wonder it came out in favor of Obama.  But, hey, that's how it works.  Take in the information, evaluate it.

I can't make Obama's numbers work either, but it's not like the voters even care about that at all anymore.  Tell 'em you'll give 'em some cash and you own 'em.

The really scary part to me is having Pelosi, Reid, Blarney Frank and Obama all wilding rowing us in the wrong direction with no controls in place.  At least with McCain we would have some balance.

wrote on Oct 13^th, 2008 at 11:15pm:

Exactly, that's why I found it interesting.  If you look at the list of 683 that monty mentions, you'll find a definite left slant to the group as a whole, so it's no wonder it came out in favor of Obama.  But, hey, that's how it works.  Take in the information, evaluate it.

Really?  That is interesting - how did you read the list so you could 'find' a leftist slant?  According to the Economist,  "Respondents were anonymous unless they agreed to use of their names."  

I noticed that one of McCain's supporters was Kevin Hassett - The guy that wrote articles and a book in 1999/2000 on how to profit from the dot-com market zooming up to 36,000 points and then staying there for a long, long time. Oops!  I guess that you don't have to be right if you are an economist funded by the Heritage Institute - as long as you tell them what you want to hear.  Kinda scary to think that Hassett is now an advisor to McCain, but I guess they had to find someone to replace Phil "America is a nation of whiners" Gramm.

monty, The Economist is way left... even people who used to believe they were center (they were, before) now are talking about it

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

I sure like what Ron Paul says.  It's too bad he has been in politics for 20+ years and has never gotten any traction.
He is so right about money supply numbers and the cover-up of the real economic data.  Anyone can tell you it is sure a hell of a lot more than 5% more expensive to buy stuff this year than it was last year......but the official inflation numbers show about 5%.

That has been the idea, borrow an assload of dollars and then de-value them.

wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 1:06am:

monty, The Economist is way left... even people who used to believe they were center (they were, before) now are talking about it START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Sure,  there are some bloggers think the economist has a left-bias,  but what about my question?  Where is the list you analyzed to come to the conclusion that they had chosen 600+ economists that were mostly liberal?

monty wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 7:15am:

wrote on Oct 14th, 2008 at 1:06am: monty, The Economist is way left... even people who used to believe they were center (they were, before) now are talking about it START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE Sure,  there are some bloggers think the economist has a left-bias,  but what about my question?  Where is the list you analyzed to come to the conclusion that they had chosen 600+ economists that were mostly liberal?

"When the newspaper was founded, the term "economism" denoted what would today be termed "fiscal conservatism" in the United States, or "economic liberalism" in the rest of the world (and historically in the United States as well). The Economist generally supports free markets, globalisation, and free immigration, has been described as neo-liberal.[15] It also supports social liberalism, including legalised drugs and prostitution."

I don't read Economic publications (would be way over my head) bur the Economist seems to be very left of center.  If so, it would not be hard to find 600 or so economists to poll who would be pro-Obama without being fair.

Callico wrote on Oct 13^th, 2008 at 11:06pm:

Mel, I am not a Ron Paul supporter for a number of reasons, but economically I think he is one of the best that was in the running.  I think he would make an excellent Sec Treas. Jerry

Me too Jerry, me too...

Frankly, I think they need to get the damn economist out of it and put a plain old "bookkeeper" in and get the books balanced and tell them what's wrong. THEN they can bring in the economists to tell them where to straighten it out.

I just don't think they've had a good audit in a LOOONG time. Every member of Congress should "account" for every penny spent and this should be public record and the government should account for every penny spent (I know I know - it IS public record if you know where to look and there are watch dogs out there, but this needs to be published more and the American people need to SEE it).

If we really "looked" at some of these "political appointees" we could probably get more qualified people for a lot less money and a lot more done. (You're doing a hellofajob Brownie comes to mind).

I'm not real smart, but even I can see that 2+2 don't equal 5.

Hugs BD

FramCire wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 7:44am:

"When the newspaper was founded, the term "economism" denoted what would today be termed "fiscal conservatism" in the United States, or "economic liberalism" in the rest of the world (and historically in the United States as well). The Economist generally supports free markets, globalisation, and free immigration, has been described as neo-liberal.[15] It also supports social liberalism, including legalised drugs and prostitution." I don't read Economic publications (would be way over my head) bur the Economist seems to be very left of center.  If so, it would not be hard to find 600 or so economists to poll who would be pro-Obama without being fair.

The word 'liberal' can have many meanings - in economics, it traditionally meant deregulate and give companies freedom (liberty/liberal).  Libertarians are liberal in many senses of the word (or every sense of the word) - they don't like limits on personal freedom.  I think that description of the Economist (free markets, globalisation, and free immigration, deregulation of companies, legalised drugs and prostitution) is exactly what a Libertarian co-worker of mine advocates.  Most people on the left dismiss the Economist as a corporatist/capitalist magazine.


And my question remains - did Fubar see a list and analyze it as he claimed, or was he fabricating information and trying to pass it off as truth?  

monty- are you sure that friend of yours is actually Libertarian?? :o

Melissa wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 8:53am:

monty- are you sure that friend of yours is actually Libertarian?? :o

He claims to be - he is a big Ron Paul supporter. Not sure about the libertarian policy on immigration, but the other issues seem to be classic libertarian: free trade, deregulating companies, reducing taxes, ending government policing of morality (drugs, prostitution, etc) and leaving that up to the individual.  

His position on immigration - the government should not control in any way who lives where, or who hires who.  He doesn't think that immigrants should have benefits, but he doesn't think citizens should, either (other than law enforcement and military protection).  His position is that as long as a person is living in a house they bought or pay rent on, they have a right to be there, and that person has a right to engage in trade or sell their labor.  

Well, from what I've read, "free immigration" does not fit their description of where they stand on it.  Here's a link to Libertarian issues and a quote from their stance on immigration...

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE


Quote:

We've faced this choice on immigration before. In the early 1950s, federal agents were making a million arrests a year along the Mexican border. In response, Congress ramped up enforcement, but it also dramatically increased the number of visas available through the Bracero guest worker program. As a result, apprehensions at the border dropped 95 percent. By changing the law, we transformed an illegal inflow of workers into a legal flow. For those workers already in the United States illegally, we can avoid "amnesty" and still offer a pathway out of the underground economy. Newly legalized workers can be assessed fines and back taxes and serve probation befitting the misdemeanor they've committed. They can be required to take their place at the back of the line should they eventually apply for permanent residency.

if you read the whole stance on immigration, you'll see a much bigger picture than just the quote above

monty wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 8:47am:

FramCire wrote on Oct 14th, 2008 at 7:44am: "When the newspaper was founded, the term "economism" denoted what would today be termed "fiscal conservatism" in the United States, or "economic liberalism" in the rest of the world (and historically in the United States as well). The Economist generally supports free markets, globalisation, and free immigration, has been described as neo-liberal.[15] It also supports social liberalism, including legalised drugs and prostitution." I don't read Economic publications (would be way over my head) bur the Economist seems to be very left of center.  If so, it would not be hard to find 600 or so economists to poll who would be pro-Obama without being fair. The word 'liberal' can have many meanings - in economics, it traditionally meant deregulate and give companies freedom (liberty/liberal).  Libertarians are liberal in many senses of the word (or every sense of the word) - they don't like limits on personal freedom.  I think that description of the Economist (free markets, globalisation, and free immigration, deregulation of companies, legalised drugs and prostitution) is exactly what a Libertarian co-worker of mine advocates.  Most people on the left dismiss the Economist as a corporatist/capitalist magazine. And my question remains - did Fubar see a list and analyze it as he claimed, or was he fabricating information and trying to pass it off as truth?

I didn't see a list.  I (along with a lot of people) do consider The Economist to be way left, so I am not suprised that their large list (anonymous or not) is comes out in support of he most radical left wing nut job we have ever put within reach of the office.  I'm not the first to say so.

The list I did see (Economists for Obama) is chock full of liberals.  I don't know if The Economist is a superset or subset of these guys, but either way, hard to argue that it is not heavily biased.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

wrote on Oct 13^th, 2008 at 11:15pm:

but it's not like the voters even care about that at all anymore.

You got that right!!!

Most voters dont even know why they are fucking voting for someone!

Watch:
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Aint that the truth.  My daughter wants to vote for Barack because his name starts with a B and she likes the letter B.

I assume half of the votes he gets will have just about as much thought put behind it as my 8 year old.

wrote on Oct 13^th, 2008 at 9:46pm:

Christopher DeMuth, American Enterprise Institute Kevin Hassett, American Enterprise Institute Marvin Kosters, American Enterprise Institute Phil Levy, American Enterprise Institute John Makin, American Enterprise Institute

Among the many listed university economists, there seems to be an inordinate number from this right-wing think tank.


(AEI) is an extremely influential, pro-business right-wing think tank founded in 1943 by Lewis H. Brown. It promotes the advancement of free enterprise capitalism, and succeeds in placing its people in influential governmental positions. It is the center base for many neo-conservatives.


Among the others from the list, but not quite noted,


Charles Calomiris, Columbia University

Larry Lindsey, The Lindsey Group

Allan Meltzer, Carnegie-Mellon University

Richard Vedder, Ohio University


are all listed as Scholars and Fellows of the right wing American Enterprise Institute.


and...



James Buchanan, George Mason University

George Shultz, Stanford University


are listed as alumni of the right wing American Enterprise Institute.


Pretty laden, from an institute where Lynne Cheney is a Senior Fellow.

wrote on Oct 14^th, 2008 at 11:04am:

The list I did see (Economists for Obama) is chock full of liberals.  I don't know if The Economist is a superset or subset of these guys, but either way, hard to argue that it is not heavily biased. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

No relation. Economists for Obama is a partisan site created this year for one purpose.  The Economist magazine has been around a long while, and they chose 600+ people they thought were top economists and mailed them a survey. They have been that every 4 years for the past several elections.

What gets me is that Obama would never even make it through a back ground check if he applied to be a Mass state trooper, just his acquaintance with Bill Ayers would squash that dream.

I have a feeling that would be the case in ALL fifty states.

Jimi, what would it be in your state?

Kev:

Unbelievable! They left out Paul Krugman, Princeton.........the greatest George Bush hater of them all....... 8-)

Charlie