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

[Oldstyle]

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?

"They work for businesses, trade associations and government agencies across the country." Based on the OP?

 

[Oldstyle]

Use a little common sense here...how many Mom & Pop businesses or even mid level businesses employ an economist?

 

[ogibillm]

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?

"They work for businesses, trade associations and government agencies across the country." Based on the OP?

what part of that leads you to believe that they are largely employed by trade unions and the government?

also what evidence do you have that those employed by trade unions and the government are liberal?

 

[Oldstyle]

If memory serves...I believe that upwards of 50% of the economists in the US are employed by the State.

 

[Al Azar]

If memory serves...I believe that upwards of 50% of the economists in the US are employed by the State.

That rings a bell with me, too. Stands to reason. Government, in toto, has the greatest interest in our economy.

 

[Oldstyle]

If memory serves...I believe that upwards of 50% of the economists in the US are employed by the State.

That rings a bell with me, too. Stands to reason. Government, in toto, has the greatest interest in our economy.

So if over 50% work for the government...it's pretty common sense that those who work FOR the government...are going to believe in MORE government.

 

[Al Azar]

So if over 50% work for the government...it's pretty common sense that those who work FOR the government...are going to believe in MORE government.

Over 50% now? A moment ago it was "upwards of 50%", i.e., as many as 50%.

If their analysis points to more government, that's what they'll come up with.

Economists are professionals who presumably do the best job they can at describing to their employers what they find the situation to be, what options their employer might consider to deal with it, and the possible consequences of those options.

Economists are analysts, not decision makers. They evaluate and, if asked, advise. Their employer wants the best evaluation he can afford so that he can make an informed decision. If the evaluation is "we may need more government", they will express that. If their evaluation is, "This program is a burden to ___ and is hindering expansion in this sector of the economy," then that's what they'll report. Analysts are black-and-white thinkers. They may have political opinions, but they're not, as a group, politically motivated professionals.

If your position is that economists who work for the government favor big government because it makes for more job openings for economists, then you're doing the entire profession a disservice.

 

[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!

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".

On what b

If memory serves...I believe that upwards of 50% of the economists in the US are employed by the State.

That rings a bell with me, too. Stands to reason. Government, in toto, has the greatest interest in our economy.

So if over 50% work for the government...it's pretty common sense that those who work FOR the government...are going to believe in MORE government.

Why is that common sense? I have known far more government economists than you have, and their politics have varied. At most I would say there is a slight liberal leaning, but that could simply be my own bias. I was a government economist and certainly did not believe in more government, and never voted for a Democrat for President.

 

[Al Azar]

Why is that common sense? I have known far more government economists than you have, and their politics have varied. At most I would say there is a slight liberal leaning, but that could simply be my own bias. I was a government economist and certainly did not believe in more government, and never voted for a Democrat for President.

Common sense may take the back seat while one is grinding an ax.

 

[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".

On what b

If memory serves...I believe that upwards of 50% of the economists in the US are employed by the State.

That rings a bell with me, too. Stands to reason. Government, in toto, has the greatest interest in our economy.

So if over 50% work for the government...it's pretty common sense that those who work FOR the government...are going to believe in MORE government.

Why is that common sense? I have known far more government economists than you have, and their politics have varied. At most I would say there is a slight liberal leaning, but that could simply be my own bias. I was a government economist and certainly did not believe in more government, and never voted for a Democrat for President.

I'm always amused when liberals admit to a "slight liberal leaning" in professions like journalism and economics! Be honest, Pinqy...you know that it's more than a slight lean! 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!

 

[Oldstyle]

So if over 50% work for the government...it's pretty common sense that those who work FOR the government...are going to believe in MORE government.

Over 50% now? A moment ago it was "upwards of 50%", i.e., as many as 50%.

If their analysis points to more government, that's what they'll come up with.

Economists are professionals who presumably do the best job they can at describing to their employers what they find the situation to be, what options their employer might consider to deal with it, and the possible consequences of those options.

Economists are analysts, not decision makers. They evaluate and, if asked, advise. Their employer wants the best evaluation he can afford so that he can make an informed decision. If the evaluation is "we may need more government", they will express that. If their evaluation is, "This program is a burden to ___ and is hindering expansion in this sector of the economy," then that's what they'll report. Analysts are black-and-white thinkers. They may have political opinions, but they're not, as a group, politically motivated professionals.

If your position is that economists who work for the government favor big government because it makes for more job openings for economists, then you're doing the entire profession a disservice.

Al, upwards of 50% means more than 50%! Don't be an idiot.

 

[Oldstyle]

So if over 50% work for the government...it's pretty common sense that those who work FOR the government...are going to believe in MORE government.

Over 50% now? A moment ago it was "upwards of 50%", i.e., as many as 50%.

If their analysis points to more government, that's what they'll come up with.

Economists are professionals who presumably do the best job they can at describing to their employers what they find the situation to be, what options their employer might consider to deal with it, and the possible consequences of those options.

Economists are analysts, not decision makers. They evaluate and, if asked, advise. Their employer wants the best evaluation he can afford so that he can make an informed decision. If the evaluation is "we may need more government", they will express that. If their evaluation is, "This program is a burden to ___ and is hindering expansion in this sector of the economy," then that's what they'll report. Analysts are black-and-white thinkers. They may have political opinions, but they're not, as a group, politically motivated professionals.

If your position is that economists who work for the government favor big government because it makes for more job openings for economists, then you're doing the entire profession a disservice.

My position is that very few people favor policies which cost them their jobs! I base THAT on a lifetime of experience!

 

[Al Azar]

I'm always amused when liberals admit to a "slight liberal leaning" in professions like journalism and economics! Be honest, Pinqy...you know that it's more than a slight lean! 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!

Have you considered that the study of economics might bring one around to the wisdom of economic policies favored by people that are to the left of you politically? They may not have started out that way, but grew in that direction the more they learned about the discipline.

I imagine that, at the outset, people who study sociology have interests that we associate with the political left. That stands to reason. I don't see any reason why people who are drawn to studying economic theories as a profession would necessarily start out leaning left. If they end up that way, then it's the result of what they've learned, not a predisposition.

 

[Al Azar]

So if over 50% work for the government...it's pretty common sense that those who work FOR the government...are going to believe in MORE government.

Over 50% now? A moment ago it was "upwards of 50%", i.e., as many as 50%.

If their analysis points to more government, that's what they'll come up with.

Economists are professionals who presumably do the best job they can at describing to their employers what they find the situation to be, what options their employer might consider to deal with it, and the possible consequences of those options.

Economists are analysts, not decision makers. They evaluate and, if asked, advise. Their employer wants the best evaluation he can afford so that he can make an informed decision. If the evaluation is "we may need more government", they will express that. If their evaluation is, "This program is a burden to ___ and is hindering expansion in this sector of the economy," then that's what they'll report. Analysts are black-and-white thinkers. They may have political opinions, but they're not, as a group, politically motivated professionals.

If your position is that economists who work for the government favor big government because it makes for more job openings for economists, then you're doing the entire profession a disservice.

Al, upwards of 50% means more than 50%! Don't be an idiot.

Despite the unnecessary rudeness, thank you for the correction.

 

[Al Azar]

So if over 50% work for the government...it's pretty common sense that those who work FOR the government...are going to believe in MORE government.

Over 50% now? A moment ago it was "upwards of 50%", i.e., as many as 50%.

If their analysis points to more government, that's what they'll come up with.

Economists are professionals who presumably do the best job they can at describing to their employers what they find the situation to be, what options their employer might consider to deal with it, and the possible consequences of those options.

Economists are analysts, not decision makers. They evaluate and, if asked, advise. Their employer wants the best evaluation he can afford so that he can make an informed decision. If the evaluation is "we may need more government", they will express that. If their evaluation is, "This program is a burden to ___ and is hindering expansion in this sector of the economy," then that's what they'll report. Analysts are black-and-white thinkers. They may have political opinions, but they're not, as a group, politically motivated professionals.

If your position is that economists who work for the government favor big government because it makes for more job openings for economists, then you're doing the entire profession a disservice.

My position is that very few people favor policies which cost them their jobs! I base THAT on a lifetime of experience!

I hardly think economists need to worry about their jobs unless they're very bad at it. They're like accountants. My grandfather, a CPA, told me something when I was young and wondering what to do with my life. He simply said, "The last one let go is the accountant." And he was right.

Economists have almost the same job security, IMO, no matter where they work. All major financial firms need them, as well as major firms in almost every sector of the global economy. No CEO can be effective without an in-house economic team explaining what's happening out there.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm always amused when liberals admit to a "slight liberal leaning" in professions like journalism and economics! Be honest, Pinqy...you know that it's more than a slight lean! 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!

Have you considered that the study of economics might bring one around to the wisdom of economic policies favored by people that are to the left of you politically? They may not have started out that way, but grew in that direction the more they learned about the discipline.

I imagine that, at the outset, people who study sociology have interests that we associate with the political left. That stands to reason. I don't see any reason why people who are drawn to studying economic theories as a profession would necessarily start out leaning left. If they end up that way, then it's the result of what they've learned, not a predisposition.

If you attend college and are taught economics by a predominantly liberal faculty then you're probably going to come away from that with liberal mindset. That isn't the "study" of economics...it's more like the "indoctrination" of liberal economic theory! Students are influenced by teachers. It's what teachers DO! Take Kathleen Iannello, an associate professor of political science at Gettysburg College...she has declared that as a liberal she will be using her classroom this Fall not to study politics but to condemn Donald Trump. Keep in mind that as a Professor of Political Science she SHOULD be fascinated by the political firestorm that is this election and it SHOULD be a wonderful teaching moment no matter what your political viewpoint but Professor Iannello obviously feels that her political viewpoint is more important than teaching students about politics so they will be getting an anti-Trump message this fall.
When I was at UMass, one of my economics teachers was a die hard Socialist. If you questioned his views you were subjected to snarky remarks in class and your chances of getting an A were few and far between.

 

[Al Azar]

I'm always amused when liberals admit to a "slight liberal leaning" in professions like journalism and economics! Be honest, Pinqy...you know that it's more than a slight lean! 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!

Have you considered that the study of economics might bring one around to the wisdom of economic policies favored by people that are to the left of you politically? They may not have started out that way, but grew in that direction the more they learned about the discipline.

I imagine that, at the outset, people who study sociology have interests that we associate with the political left. That stands to reason. I don't see any reason why people who are drawn to studying economic theories as a profession would necessarily start out leaning left. If they end up that way, then it's the result of what they've learned, not a predisposition.

If you attend college and are taught economics by a predominantly liberal faculty then you're probably going to come away from that with liberal mindset. That isn't the "study" of economics...it's more like the "indoctrination" of liberal economic theory! Students are influenced by teachers. It's what teachers DO! Take Kathleen Iannello, an associate professor of political science at Gettysburg College...she has declared that as a liberal she will be using her classroom this Fall not to study politics but to condemn Donald Trump. Keep in mind that as a Professor of Political Science she SHOULD be fascinated by the political firestorm that is this election and it SHOULD be a wonderful teaching moment no matter what your political viewpoint but Professor Iannello obviously feels that her political viewpoint is more important than teaching students about politics so they will be getting an anti-Trump message this fall.
When I was at UMass, one of my economics teachers was a die hard Socialist. If you questioned his views you were subjected to snarky remarks in class and your chances of getting an A were few and far between.

Thanks for the anecdote

Economics professors don't indoctrinate students with "leftist" theories any more than mathematics and biology professors indoctrinate their students with "leftist" theories.

It just irks you that your partisan opinions don't jibe with professional analysis.

I would reflect on that.

 

[Oldstyle]

So if over 50% work for the government...it's pretty common sense that those who work FOR the government...are going to believe in MORE government.

Over 50% now? A moment ago it was "upwards of 50%", i.e., as many as 50%.

If their analysis points to more government, that's what they'll come up with.

Economists are professionals who presumably do the best job they can at describing to their employers what they find the situation to be, what options their employer might consider to deal with it, and the possible consequences of those options.

Economists are analysts, not decision makers. They evaluate and, if asked, advise. Their employer wants the best evaluation he can afford so that he can make an informed decision. If the evaluation is "we may need more government", they will express that. If their evaluation is, "This program is a burden to ___ and is hindering expansion in this sector of the economy," then that's what they'll report. Analysts are black-and-white thinkers. They may have political opinions, but they're not, as a group, politically motivated professionals.

If your position is that economists who work for the government favor big government because it makes for more job openings for economists, then you're doing the entire profession a disservice.

My position is that very few people favor policies which cost them their jobs! I base THAT on a lifetime of experience!

I hardly think economists need to worry about their jobs unless they're very bad at it. They're like accountants. My grandfather, a CPA, told me something when I was young and wondering what to do with my life. He simply said, "The last one let go is the accountant." And he was right.

Economists have almost the same job security, IMO, no matter where they work. All major financial firms need them, as well as major firms in almost every sector of the global economy. No CEO can be effective without an in-house economic team explaining what's happening out there.

People in government have great job security. They also don't tend to push for cuts to government. That was my point.

 

[bripat9643]

If memory serves...I believe that upwards of 50% of the economists in the US are employed by the State.

That rings a bell with me, too. Stands to reason. Government, in toto, has the greatest interest in our economy.

That's a meaningless claim. Everyone has an interest in the economy. However, the state has an interest in indoctrinating people with views that justify state control. That's why the state takes over the business of education and disciplines like economics.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm always amused when liberals admit to a "slight liberal leaning" in professions like journalism and economics! Be honest, Pinqy...you know that it's more than a slight lean! 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!

Have you considered that the study of economics might bring one around to the wisdom of economic policies favored by people that are to the left of you politically? They may not have started out that way, but grew in that direction the more they learned about the discipline.

I imagine that, at the outset, people who study sociology have interests that we associate with the political left. That stands to reason. I don't see any reason why people who are drawn to studying economic theories as a profession would necessarily start out leaning left. If they end up that way, then it's the result of what they've learned, not a predisposition.

If you attend college and are taught economics by a predominantly liberal faculty then you're probably going to come away from that with liberal mindset. That isn't the "study" of economics...it's more like the "indoctrination" of liberal economic theory! Students are influenced by teachers. It's what teachers DO! Take Kathleen Iannello, an associate professor of political science at Gettysburg College...she has declared that as a liberal she will be using her classroom this Fall not to study politics but to condemn Donald Trump. Keep in mind that as a Professor of Political Science she SHOULD be fascinated by the political firestorm that is this election and it SHOULD be a wonderful teaching moment no matter what your political viewpoint but Professor Iannello obviously feels that her political viewpoint is more important than teaching students about politics so they will be getting an anti-Trump message this fall.
When I was at UMass, one of my economics teachers was a die hard Socialist. If you questioned his views you were subjected to snarky remarks in class and your chances of getting an A were few and far between.

Thanks for the anecdote

Economics professors don't indoctrinate students with "leftist" theories any more than mathematics and biology professors indoctrinate their students with "leftist" theories.

It just irks you that your partisan opinions don't jibe with professional analysis.

I would reflect on that.

Wrong. Economics professors are little more than dispensers of state religion.