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

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

i see. it's propaganda because the survey results don't match what you think they should be.

do you think maybe it could be you with the problem and not the educated, knowledgable, professional economists?

Unless it agrees with my understanding of reality, I generally assume a claim is bullshit until proven otherwise.

so you believe you know better than hundreds of economists.

They aren't economists. They are douche bag propagandists paid to come up with economic justifications for crony capitalism.

what makes you think they are propagandists?

is it because they are educated experts that disagree with your uneducated, unexpert opinion?

No, it's because they say things that are obviously untrue, such as the claim that tax increases help the economy, and that government can create jobs.

Government may look to create jobs, however it's never the most financially efficient way of doing so. Ever seen how much government waste was behind the stimulus package?

 

[Al Azar]

The most efficient way to create jobs is to increase demand for whatever those workers would produce. Unfortunately, in a sluggish economy where demand is lacking, there is nothing the private sector can do.

The government can create work to pump money into the economy and increase demand. That demand creates new jobs in production that replace the jobs government created to spur this effect.

It's like priming a pump. Once you infuse a little money, the pump starts working on its own and you/government/taxpayers get the money back.

The private sector will not do this. That's why we do it.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

How so? I'm not the one defending a criminal. You are.

if you are supporting trump you are .

What law did Trump break?

here's just one for starters
Donald Trump’s Modeling Agency Broke Immigration Laws, Attorneys Say

No charges, no convictions. An attorney can say anything he likes about Trump. That proves exactly nothing.

that just means he was not caught and say nothing about his obvious criminality.
since you have a hard on for him, nothing he says or does would be considered criminal by you .

Wow, that sounds so similar to the views often associated with Hillary supporters.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

LOL!!

So you think every time the Clintons have 400 XXXXXX "experts" who support whatever harm the Clintons intend to do, that those are really honest, patriotic, and competent people, not just partisan hacks on the taxpayer dole???


The better question, and hopefully someone will ask it...

of those "500 economists," how many got FEDERAL GRANT MONEY in the past decade???

still no evidence, just more ass talking.

In 2003 a survey of economists was conducted with questions relating to 18 policy issues, voting behavior, and several background variables. The responses show that most economists are supporters of safety regulations, gun control, redistribution, public schooling, and anti-discrimination laws. They are evenly mixed on personal choice issues, military action, and the minimum wage. Most economists oppose tighter immigration controls, government ownership of enterprise
and tariffs. In voting, the Democratic:Republican ratio is 2.5:1.

Surprise: 70% Of Economists Support Hillary, Not Trump, But 70% Of Economists Are Democrats Anyway

 

[daws101]

LOL!!

So you think every time the Clintons have 400 XXXXXX "experts" who support whatever harm the Clintons intend to do, that those are really honest, patriotic, and competent people, not just partisan hacks on the taxpayer dole???


The better question, and hopefully someone will ask it...

of those "500 economists," how many got FEDERAL GRANT MONEY in the past decade???

still no evidence, just more ass talking.

In 2003 a survey of economists was conducted with questions relating to 18 policy issues, voting behavior, and several background variables. The responses show that most economists are supporters of safety regulations, gun control, redistribution, public schooling, and anti-discrimination laws. They are evenly mixed on personal choice issues, military action, and the minimum wage. Most economists oppose tighter immigration controls, government ownership of enterprise
and tariffs. In voting, the Democratic:Republican ratio is 2.5:1.

Surprise: 70% Of Economists Support Hillary, Not Trump, But 70% Of Economists Are Democrats Anyway

And you being a ignorant Pile of stupid shit think that they are all on the take and out to fuck over the white man.
And you wonder why republicans get laughed at.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

LOL!!

So you think every time the Clintons have 400 XXXXXX "experts" who support whatever harm the Clintons intend to do, that those are really honest, patriotic, and competent people, not just partisan hacks on the taxpayer dole???


The better question, and hopefully someone will ask it...

of those "500 economists," how many got FEDERAL GRANT MONEY in the past decade???

still no evidence, just more ass talking.

In 2003 a survey of economists was conducted with questions relating to 18 policy issues, voting behavior, and several background variables. The responses show that most economists are supporters of safety regulations, gun control, redistribution, public schooling, and anti-discrimination laws. They are evenly mixed on personal choice issues, military action, and the minimum wage. Most economists oppose tighter immigration controls, government ownership of enterprise
and tariffs. In voting, the Democratic:Republican ratio is 2.5:1.

Surprise: 70% Of Economists Support Hillary, Not Trump, But 70% Of Economists Are Democrats Anyway

And you being a ignorant Pile of stupid shit think that they are all on the take and out to fuck over the white man.
And you wonder why republicans get laughed at.

Wow! When a source comes that supports economist holdIng to views based on their ideological interpretive perception of government, DAWS throws a childish ranting tantrum of words. I have to admit it's priceless, the amount of piety pride of "talking out your ass" that comes before the fall.

 

[Oldstyle]

Bill Clinton did a lot of this type of nonsense too. There were always "500 economists" who supported raising taxes etc.

.

Is that the same Bill Clinton who raised taxes and balanced the budget?

Nobody balanced the budget, Al...that's a Clinton myth.

 

[Flash]

If 86% of the "economists" thinks Crooked Hillary's idea to raise taxes, increase debt, expand government and expand the welfare state is going to somehow produce a strong economy then they need to hand in their degrees because they don't know jackshit about economics.

 

[daws101]

LOL!!

So you think every time the Clintons have 400 XXXXXX "experts" who support whatever harm the Clintons intend to do, that those are really honest, patriotic, and competent people, not just partisan hacks on the taxpayer dole???


The better question, and hopefully someone will ask it...

of those "500 economists," how many got FEDERAL GRANT MONEY in the past decade???

still no evidence, just more ass talking.

In 2003 a survey of economists was conducted with questions relating to 18 policy issues, voting behavior, and several background variables. The responses show that most economists are supporters of safety regulations, gun control, redistribution, public schooling, and anti-discrimination laws. They are evenly mixed on personal choice issues, military action, and the minimum wage. Most economists oppose tighter immigration controls, government ownership of enterprise
and tariffs. In voting, the Democratic:Republican ratio is 2.5:1.

Surprise: 70% Of Economists Support Hillary, Not Trump, But 70% Of Economists Are Democrats Anyway

And you being a ignorant Pile of stupid shit think that they are all on the take and out to fuck over the white man.
And you wonder why republicans get laughed at.

Wow! When a source comes that supports economist holdIng to views based on their ideological interpretive perception of government, DAWS throws a childish ranting tantrum of words. I have to admit it's priceless, the amount of piety pride of "talking out your ass" that comes before the fall.

Your fall along with dump's will be short and excruciatingly painful and extremely entertaining.
Btw my last post doesn't qualify as a tantrum it was closer to a fit of laughter.

From your link.
Frankly, it is hard to understand how even 14 percent of any group of economists could say that Trump would be positive for growth. As Grew Mankiw said:

I don’t know any mainstream economist–right, left, or center–who has good things to say about the economic policy views of Donald Trump.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Unless it agrees with my understanding of reality, I generally assume a claim is bullshit until proven otherwise.

so you believe you know better than hundreds of economists.

I believe the economists are cherry picked and/or the results misrepresented.

and you are basing that on what?

I know how things work, bro.

so you have no proof, no evidence, nothong but your desire for those surveyed to have given different responses.

but we should believe you because you "know how things work"

have you considered that you might be engaged in wishful thinking

Sure. But this is not a court case. I know how the game's played. But for what it's worth, most economists are not for Clinton's plutocracy, which is why Clinton could still only get a putrid 14 percent.

 

[ogibillm]

If 86% of the "economists" thinks Crooked Hillary's idea to raise taxes, increase debt, expand government and expand the welfare state is going to somehow produce a strong economy then they need to hand in their degrees because they don't know jackshit about economics.

where did you get your economics bonafides?

 

[pinqy]

Not 100% right? Dude, they weren't even close to being right! Or have you forgotten Romer's promise that given the Stimulus that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%?

I have. I don't remember 8% ever being a promise, only a forecasted estimate. Please show me where it was promised.

 

[Oldstyle]

Not 100% right? Dude, they weren't even close to being right! Or have you forgotten Romer's promise that given the Stimulus that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%?

I have. I don't remember 8% ever being a promise, only a forecasted estimate. Please show me where it was promised.

So you're going with the semantics route, Pinqy? When Christina Romer "forecasted" that if Congress approved the Obama Stimulus that it would prevent unemployment from going above 8% it essentially IS a promise...a promise that the White House Economic Advisors no doubt wish they had never made!

My point is that the track record for liberal economists hasn't been good lately. When you "estimate" unemployment will stay below 8% and it instead goes above 10%...that's a HUGE miscalculation!

 

[pinqy]

Not 100% right? Dude, they weren't even close to being right! Or have you forgotten Romer's promise that given the Stimulus that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%?

I have. I don't remember 8% ever being a promise, only a forecasted estimate. Please show me where it was promised.

So you're going with the semantics route, Pinqy? When Christina Romer "forecasted" that if Congress approved the Obama Stimulus that it would prevent unemployment from going above 8% it essentially IS a promise...a promise that the White House Economic Advisors no doubt wish they had never made!

My point is that the track record for liberal economists hasn't been good lately. When you "estimate" unemployment will stay below 8% and it instead goes above 10%...that's a HUGE miscalculation!

There is a huge difference between a projection and a promise. A projection or forecast is saying what we believe will happen IF other conditions are what we think. A promise is stating that the stated future WILL occur. The semantics are extremely important here.

The promise, as I see it, was that the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate lower than without it. Without the stimulus, the UE rate was not expected to get higher than 10%.

 

[ogibillm]

Not 100% right? Dude, they weren't even close to being right! Or have you forgotten Romer's promise that given the Stimulus that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%?

I have. I don't remember 8% ever being a promise, only a forecasted estimate. Please show me where it was promised.

So you're going with the semantics route, Pinqy? When Christina Romer "forecasted" that if Congress approved the Obama Stimulus that it would prevent unemployment from going above 8% it essentially IS a promise...a promise that the White House Economic Advisors no doubt wish they had never made!

My point is that the track record for liberal economists hasn't been good lately. When you "estimate" unemployment will stay below 8% and it instead goes above 10%...that's a HUGE miscalculation!

you have picked one wrong prediction and used it to indict all 'liberal economists.' obviously you can see the error in that sort of logic.

and i'll just ask - what makes you think that the respondents are liberal economists? what makes an economist 'liberal?'

 

[Oldstyle]

Not 100% right? Dude, they weren't even close to being right! Or have you forgotten Romer's promise that given the Stimulus that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%?

I have. I don't remember 8% ever being a promise, only a forecasted estimate. Please show me where it was promised.

So you're going with the semantics route, Pinqy? When Christina Romer "forecasted" that if Congress approved the Obama Stimulus that it would prevent unemployment from going above 8% it essentially IS a promise...a promise that the White House Economic Advisors no doubt wish they had never made!

My point is that the track record for liberal economists hasn't been good lately. When you "estimate" unemployment will stay below 8% and it instead goes above 10%...that's a HUGE miscalculation!

you have picked one wrong prediction and used it to indict all 'liberal economists.' obviously you can see the error in that sort of logic.

and i'll just ask - what makes you think that the respondents are liberal economists? what makes an economist 'liberal?'

The entire field of economics has become increasingly liberal over the past 40 years because Keynesian economic theory was the predominant viewpoint. If you're an economist working for the Federal Government...chances are...you're NOT a conservative because you believe in government as "solution" not "problem".

 

[Oldstyle]

Not 100% right? Dude, they weren't even close to being right! Or have you forgotten Romer's promise that given the Stimulus that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%?

I have. I don't remember 8% ever being a promise, only a forecasted estimate. Please show me where it was promised.

So you're going with the semantics route, Pinqy? When Christina Romer "forecasted" that if Congress approved the Obama Stimulus that it would prevent unemployment from going above 8% it essentially IS a promise...a promise that the White House Economic Advisors no doubt wish they had never made!

My point is that the track record for liberal economists hasn't been good lately. When you "estimate" unemployment will stay below 8% and it instead goes above 10%...that's a HUGE miscalculation!

you have picked one wrong prediction and used it to indict all 'liberal economists.' obviously you can see the error in that sort of logic.

and i'll just ask - what makes you think that the respondents are liberal economists? what makes an economist 'liberal?'

Do you think liberal economists had a better track record with the costs of the Affordable Care Act?

 

[ogibillm]

Not 100% right? Dude, they weren't even close to being right! Or have you forgotten Romer's promise that given the Stimulus that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%?

I have. I don't remember 8% ever being a promise, only a forecasted estimate. Please show me where it was promised.

So you're going with the semantics route, Pinqy? When Christina Romer "forecasted" that if Congress approved the Obama Stimulus that it would prevent unemployment from going above 8% it essentially IS a promise...a promise that the White House Economic Advisors no doubt wish they had never made!

My point is that the track record for liberal economists hasn't been good lately. When you "estimate" unemployment will stay below 8% and it instead goes above 10%...that's a HUGE miscalculation!

you have picked one wrong prediction and used it to indict all 'liberal economists.' obviously you can see the error in that sort of logic.

and i'll just ask - what makes you think that the respondents are liberal economists? what makes an economist 'liberal?'

The entire field of economics has become increasingly liberal over the past 40 years because Keynesian economic theory was the predominant viewpoint. If you're an economist working for the Federal Government...chances are...you're NOT a conservative because you believe in government as "solution" not "problem".

so again, what makes those members surveyed 'liberal'?

 

[Oldstyle]

Not 100% right? Dude, they weren't even close to being right! Or have you forgotten Romer's promise that given the Stimulus that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%?

I have. I don't remember 8% ever being a promise, only a forecasted estimate. Please show me where it was promised.

So you're going with the semantics route, Pinqy? When Christina Romer "forecasted" that if Congress approved the Obama Stimulus that it would prevent unemployment from going above 8% it essentially IS a promise...a promise that the White House Economic Advisors no doubt wish they had never made!

My point is that the track record for liberal economists hasn't been good lately. When you "estimate" unemployment will stay below 8% and it instead goes above 10%...that's a HUGE miscalculation!

you have picked one wrong prediction and used it to indict all 'liberal economists.' obviously you can see the error in that sort of logic.

and i'll just ask - what makes you think that the respondents are liberal economists? what makes an economist 'liberal?'

The entire field of economics has become increasingly liberal over the past 40 years because Keynesian economic theory was the predominant viewpoint. If you're an economist working for the Federal Government...chances are...you're NOT a conservative because you believe in government as "solution" not "problem".

so again, what makes those members surveyed 'liberal'?

If you're surveying economists employed by government and trade unions...you're likely getting a heavily slanted liberal viewpoint. If you're surveying economists employed by large businesses...you're getting the viewpoint of people who increasingly view government as both a means to limit competition and to guarantee solvency...so once again you're getting a slanted viewpoint.

 

[ogibillm]

I have. I don't remember 8% ever being a promise, only a forecasted estimate. Please show me where it was promised.

So you're going with the semantics route, Pinqy? When Christina Romer "forecasted" that if Congress approved the Obama Stimulus that it would prevent unemployment from going above 8% it essentially IS a promise...a promise that the White House Economic Advisors no doubt wish they had never made!

My point is that the track record for liberal economists hasn't been good lately. When you "estimate" unemployment will stay below 8% and it instead goes above 10%...that's a HUGE miscalculation!

you have picked one wrong prediction and used it to indict all 'liberal economists.' obviously you can see the error in that sort of logic.

and i'll just ask - what makes you think that the respondents are liberal economists? what makes an economist 'liberal?'

The entire field of economics has become increasingly liberal over the past 40 years because Keynesian economic theory was the predominant viewpoint. If you're an economist working for the Federal Government...chances are...you're NOT a conservative because you believe in government as "solution" not "problem".

so again, what makes those members surveyed 'liberal'?

If you're surveying economists employed by government and trade unions...you're likely getting a heavily slanted liberal viewpoint. If you're surveying economists employed by large businesses...you're getting the viewpoint of people who increasingly view government as both a means to limit competition and to guarantee solvency...so once again you're getting a slanted viewpoint.

and you believe that National Association for Business Economics members are largely employed by government and trade unions based on what?