Home|Login|Register  |    
Economists Statement On Barack Obama’s Risky Economic Proposals
100 ECONOMISTS WARN THAT WITH CURRENT WEAK FINANCIAL CONDITIONS BARACK OBAMA'S PROPOSALS RUN A HIGH RISK OF THROWING THE US ECONOMY INTO A DEEP RECESSION
Today, McCain-Palin 2008 released the following statement signed by 100 distinguished and experienced economists at major American universities and research organizations, including five Nobel Prize winners Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Robert Mundell, Edward Prescott, and Vernon Smith. The economists explain why Barack Obama's proposals, including "misguided tax hikes," would "decrease the number of jobs in America." The prospects of such tax rate increases under Barack Obama are already harming the economy. The economists conclude that "Barack Obama's economic proposals are wrong for the American economy." The proposals "defy both economic reason and economic experience."

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

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


McCain/Palin press release
10/10/8

Posted October 10, 2008 - 12:00 pm
9 Comments:

Compare the above to the McCain/Palin plan to “freeze government spending” and “cut entitlement programs”, etc, etc. These statements expose their fundamental idiocy in the current economic crisis. To “freeze government spending” now would certainly spell the further demise of the U.S. economy. Any of the above-referenced economists would tell you that massive government spending is needed and needed now. This pair continues to spout their anti-government rhetoric and in so doing continue to reveal their absolute ignorance regarding our current economic crisis. Oh. and ask Joe Public how Robert Mundell’s “trickle down” theory is working out for him about now.

Posted by mba.law on 10-10-2008 at 02:19 PM [link]

Our Tax System Explained in Beer!

By: David R.=2 0Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics University of Georgia

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. ‘Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would eac h end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33&#xsa;vings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28&#xsa;vings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)..
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’ declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’
‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar,too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!!’
‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’
‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison.
‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!!!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!!!!!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph..D. Professor of Economics University of Georgia

Posted by JDBerry on 10-10-2008 at 02:21 PM [link]

...and I will agree that Smoot-Hawley didnt work out to well during the previous depression.

Posted by mba.law on 10-10-2008 at 02:27 PM [link]

Compare the above to the McCain/Palin plan to “freeze government spending” and “cut entitlement programs”, etc, etc. These statements expose their fundamental idiocy in the current economic crisis. To “freeze government spending” now would certainly spell the further demise of the U.S. economy. Any of the above-referenced economists would tell you that massive government spending is needed and needed now. This pair continues to spout their anti-government rhetoric and in so doing continue to reveal their absolute ignorance regarding our current economic crisis. Oh. and ask Joe Public how Robert Mundell’s “trickle down” theory is working out for him about now.

speaking of idiocy
Posted by JDBerry on 10-10-2008 at 02:34 PM [link]

Mr. Berry is apparently unfamiliar with John Maynard Keynes and the concept of couter-cyclical spending. Maybe not an idiot, just ignorant.

Posted by mba.law on 10-10-2008 at 02:49 PM [link]

Maybe I’m more fond of the idea that capitalism is best served without huge government intervention, in direct contrast to Mr. Keynes’ theories.

Slow and steady.  Things cycle and when you try to effect the cycle you create adverse changes elsewhere.

I’m more interested in micro than macro because I don’t like betting on theories and assumptions.

Posted by JDBerry on 10-10-2008 at 03:05 PM [link]

I dont disagree with you at all, however, the U.S. consumer is out of gas, no pun intended. His wages have not kept up with inflation, he’s maxed his credit cards, borrowed and expended all of his home equity, Wall Street has accessed his pension and retirement through these mortgaged-backed derivatives, high paying manufacturing jobs have disappeared, and the poor sap is about to get a pink slip. Our economy is based on consumption, or consumer spending. Where, pray tell, can average Joe come up with any spending money. We’re in one heap of trouble. Capitalism has cannibalized itself.

Posted by mba.law on 10-10-2008 at 03:17 PM [link]

wages havent kept up yet the US consumer spends more on cars, games, and cable tv and healthcare than the previous generation. sounds like the consumer has copied the government financial plan

Posted by DesotoDad on 10-10-2008 at 07:06 PM [link]

i am not an economics expert,but even i know and understand you can’t run a capitalistic and socialistic government at the same time.they are too conflicting systems.one makes the rich get richer and the other takes from the rich to make the poorer not have to work.

Posted by jim on 10-11-2008 at 04:42 AM [link]
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. And yes, you can still keep your identity anonymous. See the instructions on the registration page.
recent comments


©2005-2008 Jackson New Media, Inc. All rights reserved.