14% of Economist Say Trump Would Be The Best For The Economy

[Oldstyle]

What did the trend line look like during the previous administration?

For the first seven years of the Bush Administration economic growth averaged 2.1 %. Barack Obama is the only President in history who will most likely go an entire eight years without going over 2% in economic growth in any quarter.

you realize that's a poor metric, right?

A number of people here take a snapshot and think it tells a story, with no context and ignoring what preceded it, like it exists in a vacuum. The only explanation for that is because everything it can be compared to would embarrass them.

Eight years is a "snapshot"? You should be embarrassed to make that claim, Al! Seriously...I can't believe you posted that!

Two terms isn't a "snapshot"...it's a full length movie followed by a full length sequel!

Yet you totally ignore the prequel and fail to appreciate the vast improvement. That's disingenuous.

What's "vast" about economic growth that averages 1.5% over an eight year stretch? That's awful. What puts it in an even worse context is that during that time period we were spending record amounts of money piling up mountains of debt and we STILL didn't grow the economy!

 

[bripat9643]

All that Professor DID was indoctrinate students with his views that socialism was the only "inherently fair" political system in existence! When he used the word "capitalism" it was always in a negative way.

Math and Biology are proven sciences...you know as well as I do that economists do NOT agree what is "proven"!

Well then, as long as economics has been around, we might give more weight to "generally accepted practices and principles" than politically-engineered schemes.

Compare our economic recovery to several economies in Europe. We initiated stimulus. They instituted austerity. We've been trending up ever since while they finally got tired of struggling and have only now commenced stimulus programs.

Ah, Al? An average of 1.5% growth for eight years is hardly a "trend" worth crowing about...especially when we've doubled our debt doing it! If you want to make a case for Keynesian fiscal policy the Obama Presidency is NOT your "go to" example!

What did the trend line look like during the previous administration?

For the first seven years of the Bush Administration economic growth averaged 2.1 %. Barack Obama is the only President in history who will most likely go an entire eight years without going over 2% in economic growth in any quarter.

Compare the state of the economy when each started.

That just makes Obama's record look even more pathetic.

 

[JimBowie1958]

14% of the sheep in New Zealand wish the women would try to be more attractive for the men.

 

[Al Azar]

For the first seven years of the Bush Administration economic growth averaged 2.1 %. Barack Obama is the only President in history who will most likely go an entire eight years without going over 2% in economic growth in any quarter.

you realize that's a poor metric, right?

A number of people here take a snapshot and think it tells a story, with no context and ignoring what preceded it, like it exists in a vacuum. The only explanation for that is because everything it can be compared to would embarrass them.

Eight years is a "snapshot"? You should be embarrassed to make that claim, Al! Seriously...I can't believe you posted that!

Two terms isn't a "snapshot"...it's a full length movie followed by a full length sequel!

Yet you totally ignore the prequel and fail to appreciate the vast improvement. That's disingenuous.

What's "vast" about economic growth that averages 1.5% over an eight year stretch? That's awful. What puts it in an even worse context is that during that time period we were spending record amounts of money piling up mountains of debt and we STILL didn't grow the economy!

The fact that we were on the edge of collapse at the point you choose for your example, after having suffered irreparable damage, which you continue to refuse to acknowledge. We haven't promptly bounced back because we cannot. The harm done was fundamental. People who where thrown out of work have left the workforce permanently. Their jobs are gone, forever, for them and for our economy. They will never return. Business has cut back on investment and research because demand has shrunk. Everything has shrunk. The previous administration's approach to economics has left us permanently and systemically scarred.

And there's nothing that congress, the Fed, or the president can do about that. We're like a man who has lost his legs. He can still function, but he can never grow those legs back. He has lost his full potential and he will never get it back. That's how serious was the state we were in by the time Obama and the Democrats were hired to step in and fix this totally preventable catastrophe.

You're posting like a Fox news suit. You present just enough of a story to misrepresent the whole story. You take a period out of context, like it dropped from the sky, at criticize it without any regard to context, without any comparative analysis. You're being totally dishonest.

 

[pinqy]

I'm always amused when liberals admit to a "slight liberal leaning" in professions like journalism and economics!

What makes you think I'm a "liberal?" I'm not.

Be honest, Pinqy...you know that it's more than a slight lean!

No, I don't. I'm even hesitant to say there's any lean. BLS is not allowed to officially discuss politics or policy in its official capacity, and that tended to carry through to informal conversations as well. I knew some who were very conservative, and some who were very liberal, and most I had no clear idea. Similarly, my work with economists from other agencies was also non-political, so again, I can't fairly say what their politics were.

When I attended the University of Massachusetts back in the 70's by far the most liberal faculty at the school were in the Economics Department. It wasn't a "lean"...it was a downright bias!

hmmm a department in a liberal school in a liberal state 40 years ago was liberal? That's your evidence that most current economists are liberal?

Come down here to George Mason University where the joke is you could get an A in any econ class by just writing down "Ben Bernanke is wrong." The University of Chicago econ department has also always been extremely conservative.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm always amused when liberals admit to a "slight liberal leaning" in professions like journalism and economics!

What makes you think I'm a "liberal?" I'm not.

Be honest, Pinqy...you know that it's more than a slight lean!

No, I don't. I'm even hesitant to say there's any lean. BLS is not allowed to officially discuss politics or policy in its official capacity, and that tended to carry through to informal conversations as well. I knew some who were very conservative, and some who were very liberal, and most I had no clear idea. Similarly, my work with economists from other agencies was also non-political, so again, I can't fairly say what their politics were.

When I attended the University of Massachusetts back in the 70's by far the most liberal faculty at the school were in the Economics Department. It wasn't a "lean"...it was a downright bias!

hmmm a department in a liberal school in a liberal state 40 years ago was liberal? That's your evidence that most current economists are liberal?

Come down here to George Mason University where the joke is you could get an A in any econ class by just writing down "Ben Bernanke is wrong." The University of Chicago econ department has also always been extremely conservative.

If you think that Massachusetts had gotten more conservative over the past 40 years, Pinqy...I'm going to have to disagree with you rather adamantly. The same goes for UMass. The level of "political correctness" that one has to adhere to on that campus these days is frightening. Liberal speakers? Not a problem. Conservative speakers? Oh, no...that could cause controversy and might offend some people!

Are you really trying to make the point that academia in the United States ISN'T heavily slanted to the left? I find it rather amusing that so many liberals refuse to admit that...like if they concede that's the case...they'll have to let some conservatives get tenure as well.

 

[pinqy]

I'm always amused when liberals admit to a "slight liberal leaning" in professions like journalism and economics!

What makes you think I'm a "liberal?" I'm not.

Be honest, Pinqy...you know that it's more than a slight lean!

No, I don't. I'm even hesitant to say there's any lean. BLS is not allowed to officially discuss politics or policy in its official capacity, and that tended to carry through to informal conversations as well. I knew some who were very conservative, and some who were very liberal, and most I had no clear idea. Similarly, my work with economists from other agencies was also non-political, so again, I can't fairly say what their politics were.

When I attended the University of Massachusetts back in the 70's by far the most liberal faculty at the school were in the Economics Department. It wasn't a "lean"...it was a downright bias!

hmmm a department in a liberal school in a liberal state 40 years ago was liberal? That's your evidence that most current economists are liberal?

Come down here to George Mason University where the joke is you could get an A in any econ class by just writing down "Ben Bernanke is wrong." The University of Chicago econ department has also always been extremely conservative.

If you think that Massachusetts had gotten more conservative over the past 40 years, Pinqy...I'm going to have to disagree with you rather adamantly. The same goes for UMass. The level of "political correctness" that one has to adhere to on that campus these days is frightening. Liberal speakers? Not a problem. Conservative speakers? Oh, no...that could cause controversy and might offend some people!

I'm not saying otherwise. I'm pointing out that you're pointing to an extremely left wing college and claiming most schools and most economists are like that.

Are you really trying to make the point that academia in the United States ISN'T heavily slanted to the left?

Nope.
What I'm saying is that your claims and observations are not representative. You point to one school with a liberal econ dept. I point to two with extremely conservative econ departments, and both of which are more respected than UMass in the field of econ.

You can't use one reference point for a general observation.

 

[Oldstyle]

you realize that's a poor metric, right?

A number of people here take a snapshot and think it tells a story, with no context and ignoring what preceded it, like it exists in a vacuum. The only explanation for that is because everything it can be compared to would embarrass them.

Eight years is a "snapshot"? You should be embarrassed to make that claim, Al! Seriously...I can't believe you posted that!

Two terms isn't a "snapshot"...it's a full length movie followed by a full length sequel!

Yet you totally ignore the prequel and fail to appreciate the vast improvement. That's disingenuous.

What's "vast" about economic growth that averages 1.5% over an eight year stretch? That's awful. What puts it in an even worse context is that during that time period we were spending record amounts of money piling up mountains of debt and we STILL didn't grow the economy!

The fact that we were on the edge of collapse at the point you choose for your example, after having suffered irreparable damage, which you continue to refuse to acknowledge. We haven't promptly bounced back because we cannot. The harm done was fundamental. People who where thrown out of work have left the workforce permanently. Their jobs are gone, forever, for them and for our economy. They will never return. Business has cut back on investment and research because demand has shrunk. Everything has shrunk. The previous administration's approach to economics has left us permanently and systemically scarred.

And there's nothing that congress, the Fed, or the president can do about that. We're like a man who has lost his legs. He can still function, but he can never grow those legs back. He has lost his full potential and he will never get it back. That's how serious was the state we were in by the time Obama and the Democrats were hired to step in and fix this totally preventable catastrophe.

You're posting like a Fox news suit. You present just enough of a story to misrepresent the whole story. You take a period out of context, like it dropped from the sky, at criticize it without any regard to context, without any comparative analysis. You're being totally dishonest.

"Irreparable damage"? Really, Al? That's an amusing concept. Now let's talk about what REALLY happened back in 2009 which set the tone for Barack Obama's entire Presidency!

The number one priority for Americans as the Obama Administration takes office is the economy and specifically jobs. So what is the priority for Barry, Harry and Nancy? They want Universal healthcare and they're determined to push it through despite the fact that the GOP doesn't want it and more importantly, the majority of Americans don't want it either...they want a job! Instead of concentrating on the economy however...Democrats push hard for their "holy grail"...government run healthcare! They see a once in a lifetime opportunity because they have large majorities in the House and the Senate. They see the chance to get the ultimate liberal prize and they're not going to squander that chance by wasting time on fixing the economy. THAT can wait! Their second priority isn't job creation either. They want Cap & Trade legislation passed...something which will increase costs to American businesses and harm job creation!

Yes, they do pass the Obama Stimulus...an 870 billion dollar bill that is supposed to create jobs but they spend that stimulus money very specifically. Public Sector workers are protected from layoffs while Private Sector workers are not. To use your analogy of the man with injuries to his legs? One leg...the Public Sector side...gets stitched up and bandaged...the other leg...the Private Sector...gets no treatment at all. One leg is saved...the other is ignored. Millions of Private Sector workers are let go from their jobs and start collecting unemployment as they also start burning up their life savings. Revenue being taken in by governments local, State and Federal plummet because that comes from the Private Sector which is REELING at that point. Jobs? There are no jobs! At least not on the Private sector side! People's unemployment runs out and is extended. Still no jobs. Oh, but we now have "The Affordable Care Act" probably the most poorly written piece of legislation in the history of the country...something cobbled together by Democrats because they've just lost Congress in the biggest shift from one party to another in modern political history and need to pass SOMETHING before the GOP can seat their members and stop them!

That's what happened back in 2009 and 2010, Al...it had ZERO to do with the previous administration! It was all about the priorities of THIS administration!

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm always amused when liberals admit to a "slight liberal leaning" in professions like journalism and economics!

What makes you think I'm a "liberal?" I'm not.

Be honest, Pinqy...you know that it's more than a slight lean!

No, I don't. I'm even hesitant to say there's any lean. BLS is not allowed to officially discuss politics or policy in its official capacity, and that tended to carry through to informal conversations as well. I knew some who were very conservative, and some who were very liberal, and most I had no clear idea. Similarly, my work with economists from other agencies was also non-political, so again, I can't fairly say what their politics were.

When I attended the University of Massachusetts back in the 70's by far the most liberal faculty at the school were in the Economics Department. It wasn't a "lean"...it was a downright bias!

hmmm a department in a liberal school in a liberal state 40 years ago was liberal? That's your evidence that most current economists are liberal?

Come down here to George Mason University where the joke is you could get an A in any econ class by just writing down "Ben Bernanke is wrong." The University of Chicago econ department has also always been extremely conservative.

If you think that Massachusetts had gotten more conservative over the past 40 years, Pinqy...I'm going to have to disagree with you rather adamantly. The same goes for UMass. The level of "political correctness" that one has to adhere to on that campus these days is frightening. Liberal speakers? Not a problem. Conservative speakers? Oh, no...that could cause controversy and might offend some people!

I'm not saying otherwise. I'm pointing out that you're pointing to an extremely left wing college and claiming most schools and most economists are like that.

Are you really trying to make the point that academia in the United States ISN'T heavily slanted to the left?

Nope.
What I'm saying is that your claims and observations are not representative. You point to one school with a liberal econ dept. I point to two with extremely conservative econ departments, and both of which are more respected than UMass in the field of econ.

You can't use one reference point for a general observation.

Since I went to UMass it's obviously the reference point that I would use. Amherst College, as I pointed out had Thomas Sowell teaching economics.

So will you admit that academia IS heavily slanted to the left at the moment?

 

[pinqy]

I'm always amused when liberals admit to a "slight liberal leaning" in professions like journalism and economics!

What makes you think I'm a "liberal?" I'm not.

Be honest, Pinqy...you know that it's more than a slight lean!

No, I don't. I'm even hesitant to say there's any lean. BLS is not allowed to officially discuss politics or policy in its official capacity, and that tended to carry through to informal conversations as well. I knew some who were very conservative, and some who were very liberal, and most I had no clear idea. Similarly, my work with economists from other agencies was also non-political, so again, I can't fairly say what their politics were.

When I attended the University of Massachusetts back in the 70's by far the most liberal faculty at the school were in the Economics Department. It wasn't a "lean"...it was a downright bias!

hmmm a department in a liberal school in a liberal state 40 years ago was liberal? That's your evidence that most current economists are liberal?

Come down here to George Mason University where the joke is you could get an A in any econ class by just writing down "Ben Bernanke is wrong." The University of Chicago econ department has also always been extremely conservative.

If you think that Massachusetts had gotten more conservative over the past 40 years, Pinqy...I'm going to have to disagree with you rather adamantly. The same goes for UMass. The level of "political correctness" that one has to adhere to on that campus these days is frightening. Liberal speakers? Not a problem. Conservative speakers? Oh, no...that could cause controversy and might offend some people!

I'm not saying otherwise. I'm pointing out that you're pointing to an extremely left wing college and claiming most schools and most economists are like that.

Are you really trying to make the point that academia in the United States ISN'T heavily slanted to the left?

Nope.
What I'm saying is that your claims and observations are not representative. You point to one school with a liberal econ dept. I point to two with extremely conservative econ departments, and both of which are more respected than UMass in the field of econ.

You can't use one reference point for a general observation.

Since I went to UMass it's obviously the reference point that I would use. Amherst College, as I pointed out had Thomas Sowell teaching economics.

So will you admit that academia IS heavily slanted to the left at the moment?

That still depends on the individual institution.

But that has nothing to do with whether most government economists are liberals or if that has any effect on anything.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm always amused when liberals admit to a "slight liberal leaning" in professions like journalism and economics!

What makes you think I'm a "liberal?" I'm not.

Be honest, Pinqy...you know that it's more than a slight lean!

No, I don't. I'm even hesitant to say there's any lean. BLS is not allowed to officially discuss politics or policy in its official capacity, and that tended to carry through to informal conversations as well. I knew some who were very conservative, and some who were very liberal, and most I had no clear idea. Similarly, my work with economists from other agencies was also non-political, so again, I can't fairly say what their politics were.

When I attended the University of Massachusetts back in the 70's by far the most liberal faculty at the school were in the Economics Department. It wasn't a "lean"...it was a downright bias!

hmmm a department in a liberal school in a liberal state 40 years ago was liberal? That's your evidence that most current economists are liberal?

Come down here to George Mason University where the joke is you could get an A in any econ class by just writing down "Ben Bernanke is wrong." The University of Chicago econ department has also always been extremely conservative.

If you think that Massachusetts had gotten more conservative over the past 40 years, Pinqy...I'm going to have to disagree with you rather adamantly. The same goes for UMass. The level of "political correctness" that one has to adhere to on that campus these days is frightening. Liberal speakers? Not a problem. Conservative speakers? Oh, no...that could cause controversy and might offend some people!

I'm not saying otherwise. I'm pointing out that you're pointing to an extremely left wing college and claiming most schools and most economists are like that.

Are you really trying to make the point that academia in the United States ISN'T heavily slanted to the left?

Nope.
What I'm saying is that your claims and observations are not representative. You point to one school with a liberal econ dept. I point to two with extremely conservative econ departments, and both of which are more respected than UMass in the field of econ.

You can't use one reference point for a general observation.

Since I went to UMass it's obviously the reference point that I would use. Amherst College, as I pointed out had Thomas Sowell teaching economics.

So will you admit that academia IS heavily slanted to the left at the moment?

That still depends on the individual institution.

But that has nothing to do with whether most government economists are liberals or if that has any effect on anything.

So you can honestly sit there and posit that having college courses taught primarily by liberal professors isn't going to have an "effect" on anything?

 

[pinqy]

What makes you think I'm a "liberal?" I'm not.

No, I don't. I'm even hesitant to say there's any lean. BLS is not allowed to officially discuss politics or policy in its official capacity, and that tended to carry through to informal conversations as well. I knew some who were very conservative, and some who were very liberal, and most I had no clear idea. Similarly, my work with economists from other agencies was also non-political, so again, I can't fairly say what their politics were.

hmmm a department in a liberal school in a liberal state 40 years ago was liberal? That's your evidence that most current economists are liberal?

Come down here to George Mason University where the joke is you could get an A in any econ class by just writing down "Ben Bernanke is wrong." The University of Chicago econ department has also always been extremely conservative.

If you think that Massachusetts had gotten more conservative over the past 40 years, Pinqy...I'm going to have to disagree with you rather adamantly. The same goes for UMass. The level of "political correctness" that one has to adhere to on that campus these days is frightening. Liberal speakers? Not a problem. Conservative speakers? Oh, no...that could cause controversy and might offend some people!

I'm not saying otherwise. I'm pointing out that you're pointing to an extremely left wing college and claiming most schools and most economists are like that.

Are you really trying to make the point that academia in the United States ISN'T heavily slanted to the left?

Nope.
What I'm saying is that your claims and observations are not representative. You point to one school with a liberal econ dept. I point to two with extremely conservative econ departments, and both of which are more respected than UMass in the field of econ.

You can't use one reference point for a general observation.

Since I went to UMass it's obviously the reference point that I would use. Amherst College, as I pointed out had Thomas Sowell teaching economics.

So will you admit that academia IS heavily slanted to the left at the moment?

That still depends on the individual institution.

But that has nothing to do with whether most government economists are liberals or if that has any effect on anything.

So you can honestly sit there and posit that having college courses taught primarily by liberal professors isn't going to have an "effect" on anything?

Did it make you a liberal?

 

[Oldstyle]

If you think that Massachusetts had gotten more conservative over the past 40 years, Pinqy...I'm going to have to disagree with you rather adamantly. The same goes for UMass. The level of "political correctness" that one has to adhere to on that campus these days is frightening. Liberal speakers? Not a problem. Conservative speakers? Oh, no...that could cause controversy and might offend some people!

I'm not saying otherwise. I'm pointing out that you're pointing to an extremely left wing college and claiming most schools and most economists are like that.

Are you really trying to make the point that academia in the United States ISN'T heavily slanted to the left?

Nope.
What I'm saying is that your claims and observations are not representative. You point to one school with a liberal econ dept. I point to two with extremely conservative econ departments, and both of which are more respected than UMass in the field of econ.

You can't use one reference point for a general observation.

Since I went to UMass it's obviously the reference point that I would use. Amherst College, as I pointed out had Thomas Sowell teaching economics.

So will you admit that academia IS heavily slanted to the left at the moment?

That still depends on the individual institution.

But that has nothing to do with whether most government economists are liberals or if that has any effect on anything.

So you can honestly sit there and posit that having college courses taught primarily by liberal professors isn't going to have an "effect" on anything?

Did it make you a liberal?

Let me put it this way...I was far more liberal after four years at UMass then I was when I started. What ended up making me a conservative was the real world. Once you're out in it for awhile you come to realize that college professor who sounded like they were such an authority...had little or no real world experience and was speaking about "theory". "Theory" is what Larry Summers and Christina Romer brought to the White House and the failure of "theory" is what had them both packing their bags and running back to their college jobs.

 

[Al Azar]

Let me put it this way...I was far more liberal after four years at UMass then I was when I started. What ended up making me a conservative was the real world. Once you're out in it for awhile you come to realize that college professor who sounded like they were such an authority...had little or no real world experience and was speaking about "theory". "Theory" is what Larry Summers and Christina Romer brought to the White House and the failure of "theory" is what had them both packing their bags and running back to their college jobs.

That's what undergraduate studies are supposed to do. They expose you to ideas that you might not ever have had on your own, on all sorts of subjects you might not have thought you were interested in.

How you feel about things, all things, is based on your own life experience. That doesn't mean that you were too sheltered as a youth nor that those who taught you had an agenda. It means you can't be taught everything in a classroom that you need to know to function effectively in real life.

You came to your own conclusions based on fundamentals you learned in school regardless of any spin you think was used. Great. The system works.

Frankly, anyone who is as influenced by a teacher or a group of teachers as you seem to think most economists are isn't being brainwashed. It sounds more like a student crush. I don't think that is representative of the people who call themselves economists. They do what you and I and everyone I know did - learn what we could in school the easy way and learn what's really important afterwards, the hard way.

 

[Norman]

"A policy survey of National Association for Business Economics (NABE) members released Monday shows that 55% of business economists feel that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would do the best job as president of managing the U.S. economy. The candidate with the next-largest percentage of the vote was Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson: 15% of NABE members said he’d do the best job managing the economy. Another 15% or respondents said they didn’t know who would be best or that they didn’t have an opinion.
Just 14% chose Donald Trump.
The survey results are remarkable because NABE members aren’t your average ivory tower-dwelling, left-leaning egg heads. They work for businesses, trade associations and government agencies across the country. As NABE director and survey chair LaVaughn Henry put it, these are people who have skin in the game.
“You’re speaking of people who advise business leaders on day-to-day and long term issues where the outcome has to be one way or the other, it can’t just be, ‘let’s study it or research it forever,’” he told FORBES in a recent interview. “These are people who are actually helping to make decisions of do we produce here, or do we produce oversees; do we consume more, consume less.”
By 4 to 1 margin, business economists say Clinton would manage economy better than Trump
America's business economist have spoken, Donald Trump wouldn't make America great. I know I am surprised, based on Trump's history.

Yeah, she has such a good track record! She is one of the architects behind the housing bubble, while Trump is the architect of actual houses.

Economists support whoever pay them. Hillary has promised their universities bunch of money. Isn't it interesting how the consensus is actually formed?

 

[Al Azar]

She is one of the architects behind the housing bubble,..

Explain.

 

[NYcarbineer]

She is one of the architects behind the housing bubble,..

Explain.

You'd have better luck training a cat to fetch your slippers than you will getting a coherent explanation for that one.

 

[Al Azar]

She is one of the architects behind the housing bubble,..

Explain.

You'd have better luck training a cat to fetch your slippers than you will getting a coherent explanation for that one.

I was such a bizarre statement I had to ask.

Noted, and thanks.

 

[Norman]

She is one of the architects behind the housing bubble,..

Explain.

You'd have better luck training a cat to fetch your slippers than you will getting a coherent explanation for that one.

I was such a bizarre statement I had to ask.

Noted, and thanks.

Her husband repealed Glass-Steagall.

She supported all the government sponsored institutions and housing aids that created the bubble. In short she whored for wall street.

 

[Al Azar]

At her behest?

Buh-bye.