It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

400 Independent Economists Support Romney's Plan

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by RELDDIR
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


I don't care what he looks like, I am sure he can do better than Biden. LOL


Joe Biden set the bar very low.


I think you could do better than Biden.

Look for Joe Biden to be yanked out and replaced by a woman around September 1st.

Joe would get crushed during a debate with Paul Ryan.




posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
It's Possible, I'm Sure Obama Would Rather Have His New Running Mate Vetted Than To Turn Our Attention On The ECONOMY.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Could someone please show me the 400 economists that endorse Obama's fiscal plan for America.

Waiting.



It's in the link he posted. To name a few:

Gary Becker, Robert Lucas and Robert Mundell (all Nobel Laureates), Burton Adams from Univ. of Delaware, Douglas Adie from Ohio Univ., Lee C. Adkins, Ok State Univ...


Does this help a bit?



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by texasgirl

Originally posted by beezzer
Could someone please show me the 400 economists that endorse Obama's fiscal plan for America.

Waiting.



It's in the link he posted. To name a few:

Gary Becker, Robert Lucas and Robert Mundell (all Nobel Laureates), Burton Adams from Univ. of Delaware, Douglas Adie from Ohio Univ., Lee C. Adkins, Ok State Univ...


Does this help a bit?


Thanks!

Gee-golly!


I thought they were endorsing Romney!

My bad.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by texasgirl

Originally posted by beezzer
Could someone please show me the 400 economists that endorse Obama's fiscal plan for America.

Waiting.



It's in the link he posted. To name a few:

Gary Becker, Robert Lucas and Robert Mundell (all Nobel Laureates), Burton Adams from Univ. of Delaware, Douglas Adie from Ohio Univ., Lee C. Adkins, Ok State Univ...


Does this help a bit?


Thanks!

Gee-golly!


I thought they were endorsing Romney!

My bad.


They ARE endorsing Romney! Read the first post Beezer!

Are you asleep?



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by texasgirl

Originally posted by beezzer
Could someone please show me the 400 economists that endorse Obama's fiscal plan for America.

Waiting.



It's in the link he posted. To name a few:

Gary Becker, Robert Lucas and Robert Mundell (all Nobel Laureates), Burton Adams from Univ. of Delaware, Douglas Adie from Ohio Univ., Lee C. Adkins, Ok State Univ...


Does this help a bit?


Those Nobel Laureates are enthusiastically endorsing Mitt Romney !

Read the first post again.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012


They ARE endorsing Romney! Read the first post Beezer!

Are you asleep?


No.


Just playing.


When Obama supporters can only reply that way, I feel kinda bad for them and just humour them a little.


edit on 18-8-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Where are the ECONOMISTS endorsing OBAMA? And Most Importantly "WHERE ARE THE JOBS?"



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by RELDDIR
I wonder how they currently calculate "Unemployment Data?" Anybody?


A thread from April has some explanations.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Here is the Dept of Labor website.

Where do the statistics come from?


Early each month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor announces the total number of employed and unemployed persons in the United States for the previous month, along with many characteristics of such persons. These figures, particularly the unemployment rate—which tells you the percent of the labor force that is unemployed—receive wide coverage in the media.

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

Other people think that the Government counts every unemployed person each month. To do this, every home in the country would have to be contacted—just as in the population census every 10 years. This procedure would cost way too much and take far too long. Besides, people would soon grow tired of having a census taker come to their homes every month, year after year, to ask about job-related activities....


There are about 60,000 households in the sample for this survey. This translates into approximately 110,000 individuals, a large sample compared to public opinion surveys which usually cover fewer than 2,000 people. The CPS sample is selected so as to be representative of the entire population of the United States. In order to select the sample, all of the counties and county-equivalent cities in the country first are grouped into 2,025 geographic areas (sampling units). The Census Bureau then designs and selects a sample consisting of 824 of these geographic areas to represent each State and the District of Columbia. The sample is a State-based design and reflects urban and rural areas, different types of industrial and farming areas, and the major geographic divisions of each State. (For a detailed explanation of CPS sampling methodology, see Chapter 1, of the BLS Handbook of Methods.)


BLS website



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by RELDDIR
Where are the ECONOMISTS endorsing OBAMA? And Most Importantly "WHERE ARE THE JOBS?"


Ask the people that have been given tax breaks for decades to create jobs where are the jobs.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by RELDDIR
Where are the ECONOMISTS endorsing OBAMA? And Most Importantly "WHERE ARE THE JOBS?"


Ask the people that have been given tax breaks for decades to create jobs where are the jobs.


Exactly what I was thinking. Regardless if it's private money going into it and not tax dollars, all that money not being spent in the U.S. has a public affect.
Overseas or automated.
Globalization really throws a kink in the whole trickle-down idea.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MeesterB
 


Sorry to correct you, but the "Trickled Down Theory" is the "Integral" part of the "Free Market Theory." "Globalization" is the "Integral" part of the "Liberal Economic Trade Theory." They're not the same, but exact opposites. During this recession, these two theories were tested. It wasn't the "Liberal Economic Trade Theory" that fared well.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by RELDDIR
 


The best type of "Global Economy" would incorporate "The Invisible Hand" by Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations) including no trade barriers, no restrictions and certainly no government-owned or regulated commodities. Collusion between companies will lead to more economic efficiency by new innovations in the long run.

We were on the top tier, in terms of wealth, but trade lead to diminishing returns and U.S. corporations had to relocate overseas and such. At the same time, our mininum wages increased because we thought a "Consumer Driven" economy would work.

The weakest link of "The Liberal Economic Trade Theory" was government regulated commodities, which of course led to war.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Economically speaking/Wishful thinking...Only if we could turn back the clock. Reaganomics was the best time ever. I love the 80s!



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Happy1
 

I've added a link to my thread with the stats on the Presidents to my signature which helps in this specific case because I really disagree on Clinton. At worst, he did no harm...and things improved only a little over 8 years. In the better categories, he did quite well and GDP is certainly one example.

As much as it would make me happy to say Clinton was a crappy President, it just isn't true in economics or in the standards I learned they use to set the 'ratings' on such things. He was vane, personally corrupt and morally repugnant...but then, show me someone who reached the level of President in the last several decades who wasn't, outside Eisenhower. The war hero status of a 5 Star General got him that one. lol


Clinton "balanced" (THAT NEVER REALLY HAPPENED) the budget by raiding Social Security:

The Clinton Surplus Myth
finance.townhall.com...

There are many google articles concerning this myth RE President Clinton...



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
400 independent economists might a be little different from 400 unbiased and politically neutral economists though, I wouldn't put a lot of stock in endorsements on what a bunch of "attaboy economists" say is good, we all know it's all about putting the plan into action to see what will happen everything else is a theoretical, I like this article in the Washington Post Wonk Blog or this article Debunking the Reagan Myth-NY Times another wonk blog Romney's budget plan is a fantasy

edit on 18-8-2012 by phinubian because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by phinubian
 


Sorry to say this, 90%-95% of all Economics Professors are LIBERAL.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
I am sure they all saw their pre-recession, "Liberal Economic Trade Theory" fail. People's money and well-being is not a place for Economic Experiments.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
I am sure most if not all of Romney's 400 endorsements come from "Free Market Economists."



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Due to an unpopular Vietnam War and knowing withdrawal will mean less oil and rare earth minerals on the free market, Nixon signed the trade deal with China. Through trade with China, we were able to extract most of their rare earth minerals and such. That's why now China is claiming everything in their straits, all the way up to other countries shores.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join