400 Independent Economists Support Romney's Plan

Breitbart.com/Big Government ^ | 08/17/2012 | Tony Lee

[avalonmistmoon]

Over 400 independent economists signed a statement at the website "Economists for Romney" (http://economistsforromney.com) in support of what they call the Republican presidential candidates' "bold economic plan for America"

[avalonmistmoon]

This was mentioned on Fox & Friends on Saturday morning also. 400 endorsements really says something about the current economics mess we're right now and things need to change ASAP!

[Proud2BeRight]

John Maynard Keynes was unavailable for comment.

[stefanbatory]

would that be a consensus?

[Lou L]

Over 400 independent economists signed a statement

Let's hope this isn't a subset of economist who are always "suprised" when their unemployment and other economic projections come back in an "unexpected" fashion.

[whitedog57]

I am one of the signers.

[Jagdgewehr]

Uh oh....a "Freeper" as one of the 400 independent economists. There goes all credibility in this list.

/sarcasm

[Shadow44]

Only if they’re discussing how Climate Change/Global Warming needs to be stopped.

[Raycpa]

(Have James Earl Jones begin reading text)

(Start foreboding music)

(Show pictures of starving children)

(Show granny being thrown over cliff)

But all 400 have ties to BIG OIL.

[TurboZamboni]

Proably has ties to Olin and bullets and murders in Chicago with guns,too !!!

[arrogantsob]

Keynes would be saying the same thing that these guys are saying. BTW what is an “independent” economist anyway?

Lord Keynes is a favorite whipping boy here but very few have actually read anything he said. He NEVER advocated permanent deficits. His prescription was to run deficits when the economy was in depression/recession (this came because the Neo-Classical Marshallian model he was taught and then taught himself did not seem to be working in the 30s and he tried to figure out why) and run surpluses when it was booming to retire the debt. Not this half-assed “Keynesian” policy.

Like Marx who ended up claiming he was NOT a “Marxist”, Keynes would be shouting he is NOT a “Keynesian”.

[Leep]

Do any of these economist strongly believe in Global Warming?
That was the first thing that popped into my head. Probably because whenever I hear a large number of “experts” agree on something that is the first thing that pops into my head.

[Leep]

The economists write that Romney’s plan is based on sound principles: “more contained and less intrusive federal government, a greater reliance on the private sector, a broad expansion of opportunity without government favors for special interests, and respect for the rule of law including the decision-making authority of states and localities.”

---

Less intrusive? What does that mean? The federal G’mint will still intrusive? However, they will call you by your first name when we get into your business?

Greater reliance on the private sector? How about getting the feds out of everything but what is outlined in the USC?

And respect for the rule of law..???
How about applying the rule of law? And, even more importantant..complying with the ROL or suffer REAL consequences?
I’m affraid that the Obammunist has lowered the bar so low that even a half effort will be haralded as a major accomplishment.
I hope Team Romney is downplaying what they really have to do in order to make it palatable in the knucklehead public? Once they get in office then they can begin to GUT and ROUT Spending and bloated govvernment.
But I’m not holding my breath.

A few public hangings would be refreshing..:)

[Sam Gamgee]

While what you say is true, Keynes like the typical progressive he was, omitted facts from his theories. He trumped his bogus multiplier effect while omitting what the multiplier on the other side of the equation did.

[arrogantsob]

Would you be a little more specific as regards the Multiplier Effect. Was this part of the “General Theory...”?

[Hawthorn]

>> I am one of the signers. <<

Good that they got signatures from Becker, Meltzer and similar big names.

But I’m wondering why Tom Sowell and Walter Williams aren’t on the list.

[Sam Gamgee]

The multiplier effect argues that if government spends $100 million to build a bridge, that it will generate $199 in economic activity. What the theory omits is that $100 was removed from the private sector, thus reducing economic activity there.

[arrogantsob]

I think the Keynesian response would be that the investment by the government was necessitated because the capitalists are not investing so there is almost no opportunity cost from the project.

Due to the Liquidity Trap the addition of money does not get the response from private capital that it should. Interest rates are around zero when that is the case.

But such matters aside, the fact is that all governments can be driven to such public works projects if pressure from the unemployed becomes intense enough. Part of Roosevelt’s magic with the voters came from the belief that he was doing something by setting up the New Deal. Voters won’t be told to “suck it up and wait”. This is part of The Disaster’s problem.

[Graewoulf]

Thanks for this thread.