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

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or

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

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.

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or

monty-from your sources website:

Quote:

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

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:
Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or

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


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.

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

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or

Quote:


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?

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

Me too Jerry, me too...

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


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?

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


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.

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


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.

Quote:
You got that right!!!

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

Watch:
Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or

Quote:


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.