Why can't liberal and conservative economists agree?

[Billy000]

Why? Why can't they agree over something like this?

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Something like what?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Something like what?

Good question.

In general it’s likely the same reason why liberal and conservative jurists disagree: politics.

 

[expat_panama]

Why can't liberal and conservative economists agree? Why? Why can't they agree over something like this?

They do when they're working in the market because that's when they have to accept what is or they're out of a job. When economists work for universities or journalists they have to agree with their political faction or they're out of a job. I work in the market and when I talk economics with a Democrat at work we agree on everything having to do with economics.

 

[editec]

They do not agree because they have different agendas.

As they are seeking different outcomes, they want different policies.

 

[Truthmatters]

Every field of study has differing opinions.

I think economics can be pretty easy if you look at the history of this nation you can see what worked and what didnt.

Stimulus worked in the great depression.

EVERYONE agreed it worked at the time.

The right just tried to rewrite history because history trash their failed ideas.

The left was proven correct by history.

So the right decided to change history.

 

[expat_panama]

...As they are seeking different outcomes, they want different policies.

That would mean economists agree on which economic policies produce which economic outcomes. Those whose priority is political ideology will ignore economic reality and say whatever supports the party line.

 

[California Girl]

Why? Because it is a subjective topic. Not rocket science.... but sadly it appears above the intellectual paygrade of many, irrational, people.

 

[California Girl]

Every field of study has differing opinions.

I think economics can be pretty easy if you look at the history of this nation you can see what worked and what didnt.

Stimulus worked in the great depression.

EVERYONE agreed it worked at the time.

The right just tried to rewrite history because history trash their failed ideas.

The left was proven correct by history.

So the right decided to change history.

I would agree with you.... but then we'd both be wrong.

 

[Oldstyle]

What I find most amusing is that when even an economist as liberal as Christina Romer agrees with conservative economists that raising taxes in a weak economy is a bad idea...people like TruthMatters and so many of the rest of you progressives are still here day after day calling for tax hikes on the wealthy.

Sometimes economics boils down to just common sense...or the lack thereof...

 

[California Girl]

What I find most amusing is that when even an economist as liberal as Christina Romer agrees with conservative economists that raising taxes in a weak economy is a bad idea...people like TruthMatters and so many of the rest of you progressives are still here day after day calling for tax hikes on the wealthy.

Sometimes economics boils down to just common sense...or the lack thereof...

The clue is their insistence that the Republicans destroyed the entire world economic system. Anyone who is stupid enough to make that statement clearly lacks the intellect required to understand economics. And yet, TruthMockers insists that 'economics is easy'.

 

[expat_panama]

...it is a subjective topic. Not rocket science...

That's what people say about a group they consider themselves superior to ("black people see things subjectively; they're not rocket scientists"), and then the bigots then turn right around and listen to blacks and copy what they do and say. Truman used to grouse about looking for a 'one-handed economist' so he wouldn't have to always hear about 'on the other hand', but after laughing at economists he always kept them on the payroll.

 

[Sundial]

Why can't liberal and conservative economists agree? Why? Why can't they agree over something like this?

They do when they're working in the market because that's when they have to accept what is or they're out of a job. When economists work for universities or journalists they have to agree with their political faction or they're out of a job. I work in the market and when I talk economics with a Democrat at work we agree on everything having to do with economics.

If that were true, there would be no markets. Everyone would agree about whether the economy was about grow or shrink, whether gold was going up or down, whether interest rates were rising or falling, and whether stocks were a good or bad investment. Nobody agrees about anything, whether it's the private sector or anywhere else.

If anything, there's more agreement in academia: you can't get a job unless you agree with the mainstream models.

 

[expat_panama]

...when I talk economics with a Democrat at work we agree on everything having to do with economics.

If that were true, there would be no markets. Everyone would agree about whether the economy was about grow or shrink, whether gold was going up or down, whether interest rates were rising or falling, and whether stocks were a good or bad investment. Nobody agrees about anything...

LOL, or at least that's how it sounds! Markets exist when two people have complete agreement about a prices and completely opposite needs. Stock sales happen when someone needs money and not his stocks and he finds someone needing the opposite. The person who doesn't want his stock will say that his stock is worth more than the money and the buyer will say that the stock is 'worth-less'.

Whether or not they both agree to shut up and swap, they generally will agree on policy and their views on say, taxes or regulation will tend to flow together. Most investors voted for Obama, but in the past few years we've gone from snipes at 'fat-cat investment bankers' to occupying Wall St., to taxing money the rich don't need, and these days we see that most investment newsletter/op-ed positions have changed.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

They do, mostly. about 95% of the time.

The study of economics is the study of choice, both Personal and public. the problem lies is in what people consider important.

 

[Billy000]

They do, mostly. about 95% of the time.

The study of economics is the study of choice, both Personal and public. the problem lies is in what people consider important.

That makes sense. Politics aside, how do their agendas differ?

 

[Flopper]

What I find most amusing is that when even an economist as liberal as Christina Romer agrees with conservative economists that raising taxes in a weak economy is a bad idea...people like TruthMatters and so many of the rest of you progressives are still here day after day calling for tax hikes on the wealthy.

Sometimes economics boils down to just common sense...or the lack thereof...

Only in the media and across the net is left and right clearly defined. The fact is most liberals have some conservative views and most conservatives will have some liberal views. We should have coalitions between the two parties so progress can be made on what little can be agreed on.

If Congress with an approval rating of just 9%, continues to accomplish nothing, the American people are going to question the need for such ineffective organization. We of course know where that kind of thinking will lead.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If Congress with an approval rating of just 9%, continues to accomplish nothing, the American people are going to question the need for such ineffective organization.

It seems you missed the point completely. You have to be a liberal? It is the American people who send 50% Republicans and 50% Democrats to Washington, and then complain when there is no agreeement in Washington.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The fact is most liberals have some conservative views and most conservatives will have some liberal views.

Of course that is impossible. If it was true the liberal would not have been so afraid to give his most substantive example.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Stimulus worked in the great depression.

EVERYONE agreed it worked at the time.

by "worked" do you mean prolonged the Great Depression for 10 years and resulted in WW2!!!

Here's a great example of everyone agreeing at the time:

****Here's what Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury (the man who desperately needed the New Deal to succeed as much as Roosevelt) said about the New Deal stimulus: "We have tried spending money.We are spending more than we ever have spent before and it does not work... We have never made good on our promises...I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started... And an enormous debt to boot!"

"The New Republic"( at the time a FDR greatest supporter") noted. In June 1939, the federal public works programs still supported almost 19 million people, nearly 15% of the population" [page 313]

In fact in 1939, unemployment was at 17%, and there were 11 million additional in stimulus make work welfare jobs. Today when the population is 2.5 times greater we have only 8 million unemployed. Conclusion: legislation to make Democrats illegal
is urgently needed