Not to worry about an army base cut - Trump's increasing military spending and wacking the EPA, arts, HUD, SNAP - but that's a bunch of poor people and liberals who didn't vote for him, so who cares about an economist perspective....
Academic economists need to lobby state governments and other groups to get their points across. It's too bad that the White House is full of know-it-alls, but it's beating heads against the wall to try to change them. Meanwhile, economists can help educate state and local officials.
4
Even President Harry S. Truman was willing to accept a 'one-armed' economist. Sad.
3
Trump doesn't want those square coastal elitists, especially with all that high fallutin' book-learnin'....
370 economists wrote a letter that denounced his economic policies?
Analysts at Oxford Economics think his presidency could cost the economy one trillion?
Trumponomics is a recipe for failure?
Shoot from the hip economics? Playing with fire?
Economists warn of global recession following Trump win?
Tariff talk from Trump Team makes economists very nervous?
Trump promises 4% growth, economists say no way?
Economists dump on Trump's boast to bring back jobs from China?
Trump's protectionism will hurt consumers, argue senior economists?
Trump re-packaging trickle down economics, voodoo style?
370 economists wrote a letter that denounced his economic policies?
Analysts at Oxford Economics think his presidency could cost the economy one trillion?
Trumponomics is a recipe for failure?
Shoot from the hip economics? Playing with fire?
Economists warn of global recession following Trump win?
Tariff talk from Trump Team makes economists very nervous?
Trump promises 4% growth, economists say no way?
Economists dump on Trump's boast to bring back jobs from China?
Trump's protectionism will hurt consumers, argue senior economists?
Trump re-packaging trickle down economics, voodoo style?
2
As an earlier commenter observed, "reason interferes with chaos." It must be noted that, however misplaced, the economics profession's model of "rational man" has no legitimate place in a regime operated on unsubstantiated beliefs, half truths, bigotries, and flat-out lies.
5
"Both as candidate and president, Trump has repeatedly demonstrated an appalling ignorance on economic affairs that’s wildly at odds with the image he projects — and that many voters, even those who rejected him, seem to have believed. Not only does Trump not have more insight into the economy than other politicians have, his comprehension of economic issues is exceptionally weak. That could be a source of serious trouble for the course of his presidency, and the future of America. "
http://www.salon.com/2017/02/20/seven-key-signs-that-donald-trump-knows-...
http://www.salon.com/2017/02/20/seven-key-signs-that-donald-trump-knows-...
6
Given the members of his economics advisory team, their demotion is
hardly something to bemoan. They themselves are hardly a
collection of distinguished researchers, and some have
made a recent career choice to play the role of MSM hack for
very discredited "theories".
The diktat from the Duma on the Potomac (aka what used to be called the American Congress before it collapsed into partisan warfare and leader worship/fear) to its overseer of economic analysis on budget matters to
employ dynamic scoring in its evaluation of policy effect
is a second example illustrating demotion. This amounts to a Politburo demand to make
up numbers to help justify policy that can then be recycled through
the American variants of Pravda and Soviet TV to maintain popular support for the usual "pro growth", "anti regulation" ideology, needed to prop
up the crony capitalist state.
hardly something to bemoan. They themselves are hardly a
collection of distinguished researchers, and some have
made a recent career choice to play the role of MSM hack for
very discredited "theories".
The diktat from the Duma on the Potomac (aka what used to be called the American Congress before it collapsed into partisan warfare and leader worship/fear) to its overseer of economic analysis on budget matters to
employ dynamic scoring in its evaluation of policy effect
is a second example illustrating demotion. This amounts to a Politburo demand to make
up numbers to help justify policy that can then be recycled through
the American variants of Pravda and Soviet TV to maintain popular support for the usual "pro growth", "anti regulation" ideology, needed to prop
up the crony capitalist state.
3
President Trump does not need the advice of academics regardless of field because he knows more than all of them. Our President knows more about military strategy than any serving General. He told us so during the campaign.
The worst thing about the academy is their idiotic fixation with facts. What actually matters is Mr. Trump's personal beliefs. Any data that conflicts is fake news.
The worst thing about the academy is their idiotic fixation with facts. What actually matters is Mr. Trump's personal beliefs. Any data that conflicts is fake news.
11
Researchers research and find solutions to our medical, technical problems. However, they are professions like academic philosophers, social scientists and economists that consistently fail to produce results.
Can any one look at the economist profession and point to a substantial and meaningful achievement?
They have been advising on matters they don't really understand and have lead us into a nightmarish situation. Interest rates too low and anemic economic growth, just like in Japan. They have also failed to understand the economic situation in 2008. You can read the economic reports at the time. Not one academic predicted the 2008 crash. When you so blatantly fail to recognize danger you signal your foolishness unequivocally.
Several economists replied to my previous comments with outrage. They criticize my poor grammar and my lack of epistolary skills.
This is typical of economists. They privilege form over substance, theories over reality. Indeed, the reply I received are, in my opinion, the best proof of they're being charlatans. They couldn't produce any refutation of their dismal failure of foreseeing the largest recent economic crash.
The crash was nevertheless anticipated by some market participants and traders.
This was a major humiliation for Economists, who were exposed as frauds: their models do not work and they cannot do research properly, as they focus on theories from the past and fail to recognize what is in front of their faces.
Can any one look at the economist profession and point to a substantial and meaningful achievement?
They have been advising on matters they don't really understand and have lead us into a nightmarish situation. Interest rates too low and anemic economic growth, just like in Japan. They have also failed to understand the economic situation in 2008. You can read the economic reports at the time. Not one academic predicted the 2008 crash. When you so blatantly fail to recognize danger you signal your foolishness unequivocally.
Several economists replied to my previous comments with outrage. They criticize my poor grammar and my lack of epistolary skills.
This is typical of economists. They privilege form over substance, theories over reality. Indeed, the reply I received are, in my opinion, the best proof of they're being charlatans. They couldn't produce any refutation of their dismal failure of foreseeing the largest recent economic crash.
The crash was nevertheless anticipated by some market participants and traders.
This was a major humiliation for Economists, who were exposed as frauds: their models do not work and they cannot do research properly, as they focus on theories from the past and fail to recognize what is in front of their faces.
2
The view of Economists from policy discussion must be silenced, and for the same reason that scientists must be banished from discussions of science in a Trump administration.
As Steve Bannon revealed, 'the destruction of the administrative state has begun'. In order to fulfill this nihilist vision, voices of reason must be excluded in a systematic and thorough manner; Because reason interferes with chaos.
It's not enough to cripple the departments and agencies during the Trump administration, to 'dismantle the administrative state', requires that the foundation of government be fatally compromised so future administrations will be similarly hobbled.
One wonders what vision President Trump, Steve Bannon, Paul Ryan, and all the other familiar names of the party in power, actually do have? Where do they think their leadership will take the country?
When people lose their health care and their loved ones die needless deaths, when the air, water and land are poisoned and made uninhabitable, then people will react. Short of this, I think we're stuck with 'El Trumpo'.
As Steve Bannon revealed, 'the destruction of the administrative state has begun'. In order to fulfill this nihilist vision, voices of reason must be excluded in a systematic and thorough manner; Because reason interferes with chaos.
It's not enough to cripple the departments and agencies during the Trump administration, to 'dismantle the administrative state', requires that the foundation of government be fatally compromised so future administrations will be similarly hobbled.
One wonders what vision President Trump, Steve Bannon, Paul Ryan, and all the other familiar names of the party in power, actually do have? Where do they think their leadership will take the country?
When people lose their health care and their loved ones die needless deaths, when the air, water and land are poisoned and made uninhabitable, then people will react. Short of this, I think we're stuck with 'El Trumpo'.
9
A truly worthless position.
1
The thing I am mainly concerned about is green energy. It is ripe for the taking for any politician to discover that if we invest in massive green energy nationwide, lots of people will find employment. Even if you are skeptical of the science of green tech, the opportunities are there. If trump were smart, he would see this as a golden opportunity to create jobs and invest in our nation. The rest is up to history to decide whether or not it's a good move. Anything we can do to become independent of oil is a win as far as I'm concerned. And relying on our own resources is the American way, isn't it?
I saw an article on WaPo today about coal country. Frankly, I think anyone who's job is phased out because of moving to a new type of energy should be supported by our government. They have done their work and they have helped us live in a modern world. This would be a huge leap for a trump administration and unlikely, but if they truly want to support Americans and figure out the jobs problem, there is an answer. Green tech.
I saw an article on WaPo today about coal country. Frankly, I think anyone who's job is phased out because of moving to a new type of energy should be supported by our government. They have done their work and they have helped us live in a modern world. This would be a huge leap for a trump administration and unlikely, but if they truly want to support Americans and figure out the jobs problem, there is an answer. Green tech.
7
State governments will need to fill in the gap as the "administrative state" gets "deconstructed" (demolished, destroyed).Encouraging green energy could work on a regional basis.Some governors might be open to a collaboration with other governors on various projects that are at odds with the Trump administration.They might even try regional coalitions.Legislatures could work to encourage training in green jobs among their residents by also encouraging installation of solar panels, for instance.It gets very hot in the summer and the utility bills are high. Saving energy is common sense here. States have been called 50 separate experiments, so while Trump is experimenting in the White House, let's experiment in the state house and ignore him.If it helps the state economy, it cannot hurt the national economy.
The grassroots will have to carry the burden of doing much more for ourselves, of lobbying our state representatives and state governments.We should also lobby them to use evidence-based knowledge, even if it is lacking on the federal level.If Congress ever wakes up from its nap,it might help out,but if the executive branch is being sawed off at the base by Bannon and Co., state governments will have to step up.Trump is not likely to do much for infrastructure except build the infamous wall.Meanwhile this gives an opportunity for states to figure out how to improve their own infrastructure,complete with plaques pointedly thanking governors and state officials.
The grassroots will have to carry the burden of doing much more for ourselves, of lobbying our state representatives and state governments.We should also lobby them to use evidence-based knowledge, even if it is lacking on the federal level.If Congress ever wakes up from its nap,it might help out,but if the executive branch is being sawed off at the base by Bannon and Co., state governments will have to step up.Trump is not likely to do much for infrastructure except build the infamous wall.Meanwhile this gives an opportunity for states to figure out how to improve their own infrastructure,complete with plaques pointedly thanking governors and state officials.
4
The authors are missing the whole point. Trump is not trying to make America Great Again, and neither is his cabinet. They just want to steal everything. You don't need economists talking about this hand or the other hand to steal everything. You just need giant balls, and a media that pretends it doesn't know what's going on.
Its not fascism. Its kleptocracy on a global scale.
Its not fascism. Its kleptocracy on a global scale.
12
Trump was elected due to administrations following the advice of Economists. Economists in Academia are not dealing with the world of business or banking or of working families. They are dealing with mathematical models and gaming theories and nothing real in any way. Economists can argue for Laffer or against Laffer using these unreal math puzzles. Most Economists fail to reveal their own portfolios nor are they vetted for their basic biases. Economists keep pushing for concentration of capital and highest productivity and profits. Ask if Economists can come up with a focus not on Main Street, where the Bankers are just as much as on Wall Street. Charge those Academics with ignoring higher corporate profits and focus on higher wages, services and compensation for the workers in factories, building trades, child care and elder services. Are there no models benefiting us?
6
How about a Council of Social Science Advisors? Economists talk only to each other, don't use much data, and have difficulty explaining a world outside their assumptions. We can do better: http:systems of exchange.org/
2
Fake facts look oh so much better when you don't have to deal with those so called experts not to mention reality.
Just wait all Trump policies are going to be great, stupendous no matter what the economists would have said and reality does say about them!
Just wait all Trump policies are going to be great, stupendous no matter what the economists would have said and reality does say about them!
5
Why does a guy who has declared bankruptcy six times need expert economic advice?
13
Econimst are nearly 100% reliable - to be wrong. Good riddance.
1
This is a case of Trump doing the right thing for the wrong reason. Trump's reason is the conservative disdain for experts. But it will have the consequence of getting the Neoliberal Thought Collective(NTC) out of the White House, which can't help but be a good thing, since the NTC dominance of the economic profession despite the fact they have been wrong about economics for decades now. The NTC's Extreme Capitalism wrecks the economy through inequality and austerity, and will kill us all through the climate change. Trump should bring a real economist in like Richard Wolff or Mark Blyth, rather than a NTC ideologue.
5
Lol, Trump thinks the Neoliberal Thought Collective was too slow. They weren't unequal and austere enough.
(I love Richard Wolf. I hope Trump doesn't send him to Guantanamo.)
(I love Richard Wolf. I hope Trump doesn't send him to Guantanamo.)
1
Who needs economists in the Cabinet when Goldman Sachs is running the country?
9
We have a president that knows better than anybody else about anything. Any questions?
8
We don't need anybody to confuse the president with facts. Let's stick to plan!
8
The leader needs no advice. He knows instinctively what is right in
all matters. His judgement is infallible.
All follow the leader!
all matters. His judgement is infallible.
All follow the leader!
8
Why would the leaders in this current executive branch want to have economists advice ?? They already know what they want to do and "these Very Smart People" don't need advise that might run counter to their Plans and doctrines. The doctrine of Chaos and Disruption of the Societal norms will be the "New Norm" for the next four years of "deconstruction". The return of the ENRON/Dotcom/Housing "Experiences" shall be the fruits of this present Governments Labors. History has a cruel way of repeating itself when ignorance, self-adoration, and greed are the tools of Trade !!
10
Imagine we face a crisis like the 2008 crash during the Trump Maladministration. Trump and his minions will not have a clue. Worse, they will not know where to find a clue.
9
Bailing out Wall Street and the banks like bho did in 2008 was not rocket science. If he'd locked a few of the crooks up and put glass-steagall back in place, that would have been a different thing. But his "economic advisors" thought differently. So much for expert help.
5
Half of Americans are poor or living in poverty. So what good are these academic economists??
1
Obama's economic advisers demoted ?
Those who painted us rosy pictures on unemployment and Obamacare reality ?
These advisers should get an "F". Demotion sounds just about what they deserve.
Those who painted us rosy pictures on unemployment and Obamacare reality ?
These advisers should get an "F". Demotion sounds just about what they deserve.
1
Where does the incompetence and ignorance end?
3
Yet another indication that Donald Trump will be basing his policies and positions on anecdotes rather than expert advice and scientific data. Why would you need an economist when you have corporate cronies telling you their views of the economy? Why consult with your secretary of Homeland Security about a draconian immigration policy when you have Steve Bannon telling you that it will thrill your supporters? Why consult with your Secretary of State about the situation in Europe when you have a friend named "Jim" who can tell you about what Paris is like these days? Trump, who has had an insular view of the world throughout his seven decades, has become even more insular since becoming president. He has turned the White House into his Fun House, with mirrors replacing every window, yet the main occupant has been unable to see how they have distorted reality.
10
Ignorance is awfully bold (and knowledge reserved, Thucydides), and impertinent, as it thinks it knows everything it needs to function, a product of mental laziness...if not idiocy. Magic realism sounds marvelous...until its predictable fall ensues. And the sooner, the better. Economics is being demoted at our peril...but not unexpected, coming from a vulgar bully that praises adulation rather than cold facts.
4
When the major headline of the day, (promoted by economists) becomes "the stock market has nothing to do with the jobs and earning capacity of average Americans", I'll go on strike in support of "economists"! Until then, "get a job"!
4
not too many economists running successful companies, laid end to end, well you know.
Even if Trump had an economist he would not listen to him/her.
7
Please! Trump has already told us he knows more than the generals and how smart he is and how he has ideas. He's just smarter than the economists too. Just look as his business success. Alas, his only real success is selling himself as a success. A reality TV huckster.
9
The Donald does not need an economist advising him. He and his band of thieves are going to do whatever they want - tax cuts for themselves and the top 0.1% and christian fundamentalist based laws to keep the masses who voted for him happy. Why is there any need for any expertise, insight, or discussion? That is for coastal elites - who are to quote the Donald "LOSERS".
I feel that this country has just played a game of snakes and ladders. We just landed on the snake. Down and down we go.
I feel that this country has just played a game of snakes and ladders. We just landed on the snake. Down and down we go.
3
We've had nothing but snakes for decades. Stop kidding yourself.
1
He knows more than the generals, so must know more than economists.
1
Too many people in that Cabinet Room. Like the nth farmer on an acre of land. Law of diminishing marginal returns.
Should keep the economist though.
Should keep the economist though.
1
After Alan Greenspan I won't be crying for the economist just yet.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html
1
Let them cake, no - make that soot
2
You are right about the need for economic expertise in the cabinet. But this administration is not thoughtful. They have all the answers ahead of time and they won't care if they are wrong. They will just change the "facts" to make themselves look good after the damage is done. What the country does not need is this administration.
2
..... unless your intention is to bankrupt the entire country for personal profit.
Which is exactly what the vultures in the Trump Regime intend to do.
Which is exactly what the vultures in the Trump Regime intend to do.
4
The only economics that the trump people care about is the increasing size of their bank accounts from all the inside deals!!! They are really cashing in!
5
Good grief! I'm sure even Putin gets advice from economists. This administration has Third World dictatorship written all over it.
4
Who needs economics when your sole goal is to eliminate taxes for the 1%?
After the dirty deed is done, the GOP can claim the exploding deficits are destroying the country, and the only solution is to loot Social Security and Medicare.
NIRVANA!
After the dirty deed is done, the GOP can claim the exploding deficits are destroying the country, and the only solution is to loot Social Security and Medicare.
NIRVANA!
5
Trump the "great businessman"? Anybody who believes that can be easily sold that the Holocaust didn't exist and that sewage is candy.
TeamTrump: the final solution for Constitutional democracy.
TeamTrump: the final solution for Constitutional democracy.
2
Trump don't need economists. He can have more money printed.
2
May the best person serve. Obama and his crowds did not represent my best interests.
1
The foxes at the henhouse door do not want any watchdogs interfering.
4
I guess Trump believes Washington has enough Pin Heads soaking the taxpayers.
Time to thin thin em out.
Time to thin thin em out.
Who needs an academic economists when you have a real world businessman---like Trump or his son-in-law, or his sons---what could go wrong with this kind of economic firepower.
1
Not listening to the advice of economists, but instead listening to the advice of business cronies, and Wall Street 'fat cats'...What could possibly go wrong?
3
Our once-proud country has just made that right-hand turn onto the Road To Perdition.
1
Trump hates knowledge and expertise. This shows a complete disrespect for the country, the law and the American people. Such a person should not be the president of the United States.
3
As an economist, I do not think that the loss is that great. There are no economic recipes to fix our problems, and economics IS merely political.
But let me share a business secret with you: If you do not change, change is coming to you. And it is not the change you want.
We tend to forget that we all called for change, left and right: end the gridlock, end corruption, improve healthcare, fix a broken education system, and on, and on.
Now we pay dearly for not having changed. We deserve the disaster. I hope that this is leading to a reckoning, a new awakening.
Only 3 years and 11 months to go.
But let me share a business secret with you: If you do not change, change is coming to you. And it is not the change you want.
We tend to forget that we all called for change, left and right: end the gridlock, end corruption, improve healthcare, fix a broken education system, and on, and on.
Now we pay dearly for not having changed. We deserve the disaster. I hope that this is leading to a reckoning, a new awakening.
Only 3 years and 11 months to go.
2
I am truly ashamed and embarrassed of America for this election. I thought we were better than this.
2
When the next financial calamity hits, Donald Trump and his cabal of alt-heroes won't even see it coming.
2
Trump's minions don't want to hear that their agenda is a blueprint for economic disaster.
Ignorance is bliss.
Ignorance is bliss.
2
Not a surprise. Criticism and oversight are the things Trump hates most. Why would he want someone nearby to tell him his plans are poorly contrived and doomed for failure?
2
It's pretty obvious that Trump is dyslexic. It's quickly becoming obvious that he suffers from arithmophobia as well.
Trump would be happy to add an economist hell bent on dismantling the Council of Economic Advisors. Got any?
2
It make sense, for the president the economy is a cheaters game. Who needs knowledge?
2
Oh, come on. They don't want to kick around any ideas. They don't want input that may conflict with their objectives. They don't want to consider opposing viewpoints on, well, anything.
They already don't want to hear from scientists, why would they want to hear from you? BTW, economics is, loosely, a science. Join us on Earth Day.
They already don't want to hear from scientists, why would they want to hear from you? BTW, economics is, loosely, a science. Join us on Earth Day.
2
Is not having an economist on the team really that much worse than appointing another supply-side quack to spout on about the fantasies of trickle down wealth?
3
There is something very dangerous brewing in this administration and it seems all roads lead to Steve Bannon and his "tearing down the administrative state" declaration. I'm not sure anybody knows exactly what that means but all indications are fairly ominous. A lot of people have come to the conclusion that Steve Bannon is the real "president" of this country and that's terrifying enough in itself since it's never really happened like this in our history. We all felt that Dick Chaney was running things in the White House, leaving George Bush as something of a figurehead. But this is different and in many ways terrifying, that is, if you like America being a democracy and all. Here's hoping for the impossible: republicans come to their senses and figure out why number one, why these people in this cabinet. And two, we find out the true scoop on Russia. And then they do something about it.
1
Why would a Trump/Putin regime where the facts are whatever you want them need economists for?
If the regime wants 4% economic growth, that's what it will be even if it is not true.
If the regime wants 4% economic growth, that's what it will be even if it is not true.
3
If so-called President Trump says the earth is flat, then any argument to the contrary will be deemed fake news. Next step, scientists burning at the stake?
3
Are those the same advisors who didn't see the housing bubble coming? I haven't heard them screaming about the 20 trillion dollar debt. As the middle class has been disappearing in the USA, what advice have they been giving?
Do we really need them?
Do we really need them?
2
Who better to manage the American economy than a failed casino, restaurant, hotel, resort and fake university owner?
One so corrupt that he can't show the American people his taxes because he knows there are people walking around who would immediately blow the whistle on his fraudulent tax filings.
One so corrupt that he can't show the American people his taxes because he knows there are people walking around who would immediately blow the whistle on his fraudulent tax filings.
3
S.M.:"It is important to have someone in the cabinet who is more interested in protecting academic integrity than in protecting business interests or the president’s image."
Suggest you add public/common good to "academic integrity."
Suggest you add public/common good to "academic integrity."
5
The demotion reflects one, obvious, non-alternative fact: Trump's singular view of the world that neither ethics or rational science should enter into economic decisions; you take what you want, when you want it and regulations/policies are always the enemy of "progress." You rule by fiat unless an inconvenient federal court gets in your way.
It is now abundantly clear that, absent resistance, America is now a government "of Trump, by Trump and for Trump."
It is now abundantly clear that, absent resistance, America is now a government "of Trump, by Trump and for Trump."
2
I always found it kind of amusing, as well, that when lawyers are being interviewed on TV they always show them seated in front of a library wall full of law books. Props are everything nowadays.
1
Well, with a trail of bankruptcies, business failures, and billion dollar losses on tax returns, Trump knows best about the economy.
1
I'm okay with demoting the economists who for 8 years gave Trump advice that led to a "recovery" that saw wage stagnation, job loss, huge defecits, skyrocketing medical bills and the enslavement of Americans to the insurance companies.
With enough data, you can cherry pick any conclusion you want. However, as middle america was gutted, the people voted for someone to reject that economic failure.
With enough data, you can cherry pick any conclusion you want. However, as middle america was gutted, the people voted for someone to reject that economic failure.
1
As the Magliozzi brothers often mused about tunnel vision politics, Mr. Trump and his crew are dedicated to "completely by-passing the thought process."
Only assert. Never think, reflect, or weigh arguments and analysis.
There are only "alternative facts." Everything else is "fake news."
Only assert. Never think, reflect, or weigh arguments and analysis.
There are only "alternative facts." Everything else is "fake news."
1
Independent voices serve no purpose in echo chambers
2
I doubt that Trump will appoint a council of economic advisers. What self-respecting economist would join it? For "economic advice", he'll probably look to the same-old, same-old, Lawrence Kudlow.
How has professional economists having a voice helped the working and middle classes prior to Trump winning the election?
The answer is obvious. Either economists have served the oligarchy as faithfully as the political class, or their opposition to the rigged economy was so muted as to have made no difference. Either way, it's hard to argue the critical mass of the electorate will rue their disappearance.
The answer is obvious. Either economists have served the oligarchy as faithfully as the political class, or their opposition to the rigged economy was so muted as to have made no difference. Either way, it's hard to argue the critical mass of the electorate will rue their disappearance.
3
what else would you expect from the president who "loves the poorly educated" and seems determined to multiply them?
1
Under Trump the only economic policy is The Art of the Deal, whose simple lesson is Me, Me, Me. It was the only text in the syllabus of the fraudulent Trump University. Buy it and become a millionaire in your dreams. Ignore the fact that Trump didn't actually write it, and that the guy who did write it has disavowed it. Who needs economic expertise when you have pure selfishness leading the country? Science is next on the hit list.
3
Since trump and his administration are operating under "alternative facts," who needs academic integrity? He sees no consequences to his actions, anyway. He has no dots to connect. He does not know what he is doing. He should go back to reality tv. He is being manipulated by the multiplying nazis surrounding him who have their own agenda. A new world order? trump should open his eyes before it is too late. Unfortunately, I do not think this will happen. Where is the republican congress?
3
"The chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers has been dropped from the new administration’s cabinet, depriving it of the council’s academic expertise."
What makes anybody think that this rogue administration wants academic expertise? Did they want it on the subject of global warming? On the subject of trade barriers? Public education? Health insurance? In fact, anything?
The phrase "academic expertise" is anathema to this group of pretenders.
What makes anybody think that this rogue administration wants academic expertise? Did they want it on the subject of global warming? On the subject of trade barriers? Public education? Health insurance? In fact, anything?
The phrase "academic expertise" is anathema to this group of pretenders.
7
it is important to note that all bills introduced in Congress get "scored" by the Congressional Budget Office. They analyze the costs to the Government, but also analyze the potential economic consequences. And yes, they use economists to do this analysis. I worked in the Executive Office of the President in W's administration, and the CEA was an important body to have at the table. For example, what happens when you repeal and replace the Affordable Health Care Act? How do you know it will not raise the deficit? (In fact, CBO analysis says repeal of the ACA would modestly increase the Federal debt in the long run, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50252). I guess they know better.
2
Economists are garbage and economics is somewhere between astrology and psychoanalysis in terms of validity so good riddance.
Accept that Bannon is in charge - not Trump. Anyone contrary to Bannon will be silenced. Bannon's alt- right news service will be the White House mouthpiece. Trump likes the trappings of power. There is no First Lady to temper his fits. Trump's hand is on Kellyann's back. Congress is neutered. Ryan will pay for the wall and middle America will pay for it because taxes will be reduced for the wealthy. The worst is yet to come. Military rule, banning the media, misfits in the White House - shades of Hitler. Keep the leaking faucet open. Trump loved the Hillary leaks - now the tide has turned.
5
This is part of the Bannon plan to destroy the state. You can't argue against math, so eliminate the people who know math and deploy it without ideology contaminating their conclusions. Bannon is all about contamination of data.
3
Gosh, I wonder how we will survive without all that economic advice at the top. There might be something like a sub prime mortgage bubble brewing and Trump wouldn't be informed.
3
It is all part of Brannon's master plan to marginalize those government positions that pose a threat to the Trump agenda. Rex Tillerson is clearly on the outside looking in, the generals are being set up for failure, the chief-of-staff has Pivoted so far to the right that there is no turning back. He knows the GOP-controlled legislature will remain silent because the members are so obsessed with getting their tax cuts, seating their conservative SCOTUS nominee, and making Christianity the only legitimate religion.
2
I suppose this wouldn't be so bad if Trump hadn't already proven he doesn't know the first thing about basic economics, (i.e. he's going to make Mexico pay for his wall by having Americans pay an added tax on Mexican goods.)
4
There would not be an added tax on "Mexican goods" if the " goods" were made in the U.S. by U.S. workers instead of the U.S. factory moving to Mexico.
The real problem is that the only institution in the US which so far seems spared from partisan distrust is the military.
1
Economists fall into a category that we'd rather not hear about, because they really don't seem to know in the short term what's going to happen with the economy. But at least they know more than a self-aggrandizing "businessman" who's failed at almost every business he's run (and the US economy will be no exception, I'd guess). His only business accomplishment lies in selling himself as a brand by making outrageous claims that have little or nothing to do with the facts. I would guess after the upcoming recession, that brand won't be worth much any more.
2
Sounds like part of a set up by the Trump administration for making "dynamic scoring" the de jure force in forming and vetting the economic effects of their new policies.
2
Trump has no desire to be associated with experts. He is the only expert needed to run the country, and perhaps with a few others that will tell him how great he is.
1
Why should President Trump and Congressional Republicans want to consult with economists when they can mimic Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback--who has transformed his state budget into an economic disaster-zone?
1
So, it seems that we will quickly move into having alternative facts relating to the economy as well.
When a government is focused on creating profit for the leadership and a conflagration for the rest of us this surely cannot be a surprise.
These next years are going to be far worse than imagined. The lethal combination of Trump and Bannon, supported and protected by Ryan, McConnell & Company will lay waste to this country.
These next years are going to be far worse than imagined. The lethal combination of Trump and Bannon, supported and protected by Ryan, McConnell & Company will lay waste to this country.
Were Economists at the table to advise former Pres. Clinton of the possible ramifications of repealing Glass-Steagall in 1999 which may have been a big factor in our near financial collapse in 2007/2008?
"... this move will rob the policy-making process of a particular kind of expertise and, worse, contribute to insularity and bias."
You have really pinpointed the growing problem here: insularity and bias in the White House. It is clear that dissenting views are not wanted. As trump continues to double down on the vitriol and hatred spewed toward the majority of people in this country, and the pointed exclusion of mainstream media from press announcements, any possibility of healing the rift between the far right and everyone else is pretty much gone.
I mean, CNN? Really? When did they become a liberal news organization? I must have missed something.
You have really pinpointed the growing problem here: insularity and bias in the White House. It is clear that dissenting views are not wanted. As trump continues to double down on the vitriol and hatred spewed toward the majority of people in this country, and the pointed exclusion of mainstream media from press announcements, any possibility of healing the rift between the far right and everyone else is pretty much gone.
I mean, CNN? Really? When did they become a liberal news organization? I must have missed something.
President Trump knows more than the generals. Having gone bankrupt at least four times, he knows more than the economists, bankers and lawyers. He is a self proclaimed "very smart person." Indeed, since his entire alt-reality is generated from deep within his Id, he needs no advice or counsel from anyone. Advice from others would only mess up the chaos within which he lives and which he seeks to inflict upon us all.
The man is sick.
The man is sick.
1
I know what I believe,I saw in on Fox, read it on Breibart, and confirmed it in "the Crusader" and the ANP report.
Don't confuse the issue with facts from educational elitists. They aren't real Americans. And pass the Kool Trumpaid, deliciously bottled down stream from the coal waste dumping site. Only ten dollars a sip.
It will bring jobs back, to the funeral industry.
Don't confuse the issue with facts from educational elitists. They aren't real Americans. And pass the Kool Trumpaid, deliciously bottled down stream from the coal waste dumping site. Only ten dollars a sip.
It will bring jobs back, to the funeral industry.
1
I cannot think of a dumber investment than Trump's plans to increase the overkill ratio of the existing US nuclear arsenal.
1
Except I believe it was Obama's plan
1
An economist would have warned the president of the harmful effect of his draconian immigration sweeps. You don't disrupt the 2 trillion dollar under-ground economy, where most undocmenteds gain their livelihood, and not expect a serious drag on the overall economy.
"If all the economists were laid end to end, they'd never reach a conclusion." - George Bernard Shaw.
Just because they have cool looking charts and tons of numbers to back up their assertions doesn't make them any better at predicting the future than Tarot card readers.
Can anyone point to a single smashing success of the economists we've hired that would warrant what we pay them?
Just because they have cool looking charts and tons of numbers to back up their assertions doesn't make them any better at predicting the future than Tarot card readers.
Can anyone point to a single smashing success of the economists we've hired that would warrant what we pay them?
1
They were a real help in encouraging Clinton to kill Glass-Steagall. Nice job, academics. Thanks for the financial madness that followed. Stick to the past, which is where they belong. Tiresias has more insight than a conference-full--ECB and Greece, I'm certain, would agree with that.
2
We definitely don't want anyone with intelligence, you know, knowledge of economics, academic elites with any brains doing our economic advising. That would strip us of our capability of improving the economy.
There are plenty of hermits in the woods that can solve these pesky problems, and they're packin', which we know solved all sorts of "issues" for the Germans in the late thirties and early forties. God Bless America.
There are plenty of hermits in the woods that can solve these pesky problems, and they're packin', which we know solved all sorts of "issues" for the Germans in the late thirties and early forties. God Bless America.
2
When economists universally condemn socialism and government interference in the free market (like minimum wage laws), perhaps more people would listen to them.
"The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy" should be a mandatory part of public education.
"The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy" should be a mandatory part of public education.
1
Long over due is the expulsion of those who teach what they can't do. There are many who believe that the economic theory should prevail; however reality tends to disagree- and often.
2
It will not matter a bit. These so called economists only preach the policy that enriches them. They have become nothing more than mouthpieces to push political agenda.
2
Trump doesn't want to be told what Trump doesn't want to hear, especially if it requires more than a handful of bullet points and a couple of large pictures to explain.
3
This is part of an on-going populist rejection of experts -- it happened in Britain before the Brexit, and Trump is just the American high priest of this cult. When you are thinking in Disneyland terms, it is so discouraging to have experts intrude with their reminders of the nature of reality. So, if the experts would just shut up, then Trump can cut taxes, especially for the rich, because the economy is magically going to grow at over five per cent per year. Of course it is! And the Back-to-Work Fairy is going to flutter into coal country and bring all those great mining jobs back. And, of course, "the African Americans are going to be sooooo happy. I don't know how, but they will be."
We have way too much stupid going on in our country. We need experts, and we need to listen to them.
We have way too much stupid going on in our country. We need experts, and we need to listen to them.
4
Not just economists. Knowledge, reasoning and being straightforward also have been abandoned. Not surprising for Trump, for that has always been his approach. But that he believes that approach works in Washington on serious matters is what is new to town. It worked for him in convincing people without significant knowledge on matters of public policy to vote for him. But governing in the age of instant communications requires enough serious reasoning to pass the smell test. The only smell coming from Washington is the smell of rot coming from Trump and his Republican Party
For a President to forego guidance from the Counsel of Economic Advisers is the equivalent of a pilot of a cross continent flight foregoing guidance from the weather scientists.
Mr. Trump's over-reliance on the single measure of trade deficits between countries shows his nativity in governance. He seems to be unaware that it was only in the Great Depression that the US had a significant trade surplus. The concept of comparative advantages among countries seems to be above his level of comprehension.
Trade relationships take generations to build. Mr. Trump is taking steps that may well result in nations and industries turning to China so as to have a more reliable and respectful partner and subsequently shuttered factories in the US.
Both Jim Rogers and Lawrence Kotlikoff have warned of the danger of retaliation from other countries if Trump's "me first" trade attitudes continue , as well as the plunge in stock prices that would result from the US being shut out of world markets.
Mr. Trump's over-reliance on the single measure of trade deficits between countries shows his nativity in governance. He seems to be unaware that it was only in the Great Depression that the US had a significant trade surplus. The concept of comparative advantages among countries seems to be above his level of comprehension.
Trade relationships take generations to build. Mr. Trump is taking steps that may well result in nations and industries turning to China so as to have a more reliable and respectful partner and subsequently shuttered factories in the US.
Both Jim Rogers and Lawrence Kotlikoff have warned of the danger of retaliation from other countries if Trump's "me first" trade attitudes continue , as well as the plunge in stock prices that would result from the US being shut out of world markets.
Academics are too concerned with pesky things like facts, evidence, critical thinking, logical debate, ethical decision making, collaboration and consensus building. They would just get in the way of making America great for fascism.
"Experts?! What the [heck] do they know? - Mayor Richard J. Daley
When ask why he doesn't hire more consultants, i.e. experts on politics. That's right, this is NYT, that Daley was Mayor of Chicago from about 1956 to 1976.
Trump is all about sales - not details. Details and anyone associated with all those stupid details are just costs. Development costs keeping him from making a bigger killing on the deal. Economics for decision making falls under feasibility study. Feasibility study generally includes problem definition, options formulation, options evaluation based on effectiveness, implementability and economics, and finally some sort of sensitivity analysis. At the end, the most feasible option is put into practice. In a perfect world. Usually a dude who is top dog, an idea man, a developer extraordinaire, a salesman like none other wants his idea (option) to be most feasible. And so it shall be.
Economists who actually know how to do economics probably shouldn't rush to work in the Trump administration. Maybe work under the cover of a well insulated consulting firm, if you want to ply your trade. If you have a "kick me" sign on your back and enjoy getting slapped around by hand waving son-in-laws and unkept oddball reactionaries on missions from god, then by all means join the Trump team. If things don't go as planned, it's the details person's idea who studied the problem and put in down in writing.
When ask why he doesn't hire more consultants, i.e. experts on politics. That's right, this is NYT, that Daley was Mayor of Chicago from about 1956 to 1976.
Trump is all about sales - not details. Details and anyone associated with all those stupid details are just costs. Development costs keeping him from making a bigger killing on the deal. Economics for decision making falls under feasibility study. Feasibility study generally includes problem definition, options formulation, options evaluation based on effectiveness, implementability and economics, and finally some sort of sensitivity analysis. At the end, the most feasible option is put into practice. In a perfect world. Usually a dude who is top dog, an idea man, a developer extraordinaire, a salesman like none other wants his idea (option) to be most feasible. And so it shall be.
Economists who actually know how to do economics probably shouldn't rush to work in the Trump administration. Maybe work under the cover of a well insulated consulting firm, if you want to ply your trade. If you have a "kick me" sign on your back and enjoy getting slapped around by hand waving son-in-laws and unkept oddball reactionaries on missions from god, then by all means join the Trump team. If things don't go as planned, it's the details person's idea who studied the problem and put in down in writing.
Honestly, I'd be hard-pressed to say who I dislike more: Donald Trump or the academic economists who didn't think that revoking Glass-Steagall, not regulating derivatives, and allowing banks to bundle up junk bonds and sell them as AAA would not lead to a crisis in 2008.
There's a reason Trump is in office, and these self-serving academic economists are certainly a part of that reason.
There's a reason Trump is in office, and these self-serving academic economists are certainly a part of that reason.
This administration, led by its main movers and enforcers, is so enamored of its core nihilism that arguments about efficacy have little to no meaning for them. The chances are that if something was done one way in the past they reflexively think that was wrong. This is particularly true if the ideas come from realms which they see as peopled with enemies, such as academia. It's not so much an anti-intellectualism, although that strain is apparent, it is their deep pathology of aggrievement that drives them to discount the value of experience and drives their need for revenge. And as long as their victim mentality appeals to a large swath of supporters, who want nothing more at his stage than to see Trump and company poking enemies in the eye, they will accomplish little. Meanwhile, behind all the sound and fury, the GOP dismantles what is left of the New Deal policies that established the middle class on sound footing, negative economic consequences be damned.
This interests me very much. What does eliminating an economist from the cabinet really accomplish? It doesn't stop economists for observing, thinking and having opinions about the economic results of administration actions (only after the fact). The elimination won't prevent publication of the opinions of these experts regarding the results. International interaction by American economists with others from all over the world will still take place. It seems that the administration has decided that there is no need to hear any opinions that may not agree with the ideas of the billionaire cabinet on the benefits accruing to unrestrained business. If administration policies fail or damage the economic foundation of the country, there seems to be all manner of explanations currently available for that, such as "the previous administration caused it", "things are really great", "somebody told me", "it's just fake news", "find the leakers", "give it a chance", "taxes on business are too high" and on and on. Wonderland on the Potomac. So Sad For The Country!
2
Yes, a bad idea.
Not surprising since Trump is a capitalist who is a predator, which means he does not care about anyone else; neither do the capitalists who are predators who support and who control Trump.
And also, Trump and they believe that because they have amassed so much unnecessary and obscene amounts of money and wealth. at the expense of others, that Trump and they believe that their piles of dough demonstrate that they are the most fit of the species.
We must confront Trump regularly to keep him from ripping Americans off. Four, 4. years in office is 208 weeks, (some of which has passed), 208 weeks to do all that those who do not believe in capitalists being predators can do to stop him from his destructiveness.
Not surprising since Trump is a capitalist who is a predator, which means he does not care about anyone else; neither do the capitalists who are predators who support and who control Trump.
And also, Trump and they believe that because they have amassed so much unnecessary and obscene amounts of money and wealth. at the expense of others, that Trump and they believe that their piles of dough demonstrate that they are the most fit of the species.
We must confront Trump regularly to keep him from ripping Americans off. Four, 4. years in office is 208 weeks, (some of which has passed), 208 weeks to do all that those who do not believe in capitalists being predators can do to stop him from his destructiveness.
1
They're Republicans. They're bad at Math. Honestly what kind of fool keeps pushing the whole "Tax cuts pay for themselves" mantra when nearly 40 years of attempting just that has failed miserably to produce one single shred of evidence supporting it? They're bad at Psychology. Most of their policies effectively cut people off as though ignoring them made them go away. People don't cease to exist just because they don't fit a convenient narrative. They're bad at Science and Logic. After all, what kind of fool could possibly imagine that humans could pump as much heat into the thermodynamic system which is climate and there be NO effect? It's a long list, but there isn't enough space here for a complete list of their failures. (and no, Trumpees - winning the White House doesn't make you successful or your perspective valid. It just means you won the White House. Deal with it.)
I'd say they were idiots, but that might be giving them too much credit.
I'd say they were idiots, but that might be giving them too much credit.
1
No, it's a very good idea. Economics is a dream, like alchemy. It's not a science. Humanity has long moved beyond cave painters, sooth sayers, witch doctors, and purple people eaters.
1
I wonder if Trump is ever going to realize that he is being manipulated and get tired of being under the control and direction of Bannon (and Putin)?
This is the same man who called his first National Security Advisor at 3 am to ask "What's better? A strong dollar or a weak dollar"? He clearly needs some help understanding the national and global economies.
Trump and Bannon are a cancer on this country and the world.
This is the same man who called his first National Security Advisor at 3 am to ask "What's better? A strong dollar or a weak dollar"? He clearly needs some help understanding the national and global economies.
Trump and Bannon are a cancer on this country and the world.
Where was the council when Bush was cutting taxes, or running the war on our credit card? Where has the council been while inequality has been exploding? How about student loans, bank bailouts, free money for wall street etc.
Face it, academics are easily bought and swayed to say anything. Not a supporter of Trump, but the council and all of its collective wisdom has really not made a great case for itself if the argument is for the little guy. Maybe they should try to become relevant for the bottom 50%.
Face it, academics are easily bought and swayed to say anything. Not a supporter of Trump, but the council and all of its collective wisdom has really not made a great case for itself if the argument is for the little guy. Maybe they should try to become relevant for the bottom 50%.
1
When so much evidence points to an administration with plans that will explode the national debt through a combination of wild spending on the military and infrastructure, coupled with massive tax cuts - primarily benefitting the wealthy - the LAST thing the Trump folks want is some economic expert over in the corner harshing their mellow with stats contradicting their plans.
No experts at State? I'm flying this plane based on my gut. Don't talk nuance. Who cares if nobody here knows the difference between Mexico, El Salvador and Kuala Lampur?
Massive staff cuts at EPA? Climate science is a hoax...who needs 'em?
Gutting the Consumer Protection Bureau and politicizing its leadership? Pay Day loans are good for you and if Wells Fargo wants to open an account for you without telling you, what's the harm? You now have a larger credit line.
Numbers for a bogus health care "replacement program" don't add up. Screw the Congressional Budget Office analysis? We'll use "dynamic scoring" by claiming the economy will grow at a rate of 7% a year due to our "reforms."
All those so called "experts" were what got us into this huge mess I inherited in the first place. Besides I know more than the generals and I have "like a really good mind."
No experts at State? I'm flying this plane based on my gut. Don't talk nuance. Who cares if nobody here knows the difference between Mexico, El Salvador and Kuala Lampur?
Massive staff cuts at EPA? Climate science is a hoax...who needs 'em?
Gutting the Consumer Protection Bureau and politicizing its leadership? Pay Day loans are good for you and if Wells Fargo wants to open an account for you without telling you, what's the harm? You now have a larger credit line.
Numbers for a bogus health care "replacement program" don't add up. Screw the Congressional Budget Office analysis? We'll use "dynamic scoring" by claiming the economy will grow at a rate of 7% a year due to our "reforms."
All those so called "experts" were what got us into this huge mess I inherited in the first place. Besides I know more than the generals and I have "like a really good mind."
Trump's presidency is going to end badly, just like all of his other "business" ventures. In the years leading up to the 2008 Great Recession, we had the robo-signed mortgage/housing bubble. And now we have the Trump "economic" bubble. I feel both pity and rage for the credulous fools who voted this fraud into office.
Trump doesn't care about economic consequences. His wall is the best example.
Actually, he doesn't care about consequences period. And he has nor room for academics, intellectuals or reason.
Actually, he doesn't care about consequences period. And he has nor room for academics, intellectuals or reason.
1
More than anything, Trump and his insular council of advisers remind me of the Medieval Catholic Church trying to refute scientific discovery. If we don't find a way to rid ourselves of these Know-Nothings, we will be headed into the next Dark Age.
1
Trump is doing almost everything differently than it has been done in the past. That is unsettling to many including myself. The reason is that I consider Trump a crackpot. Everyone has their own reasons I am sure.
1
We not only need economists, but the right economists and the administration has to listen. Without the second two, the economists are wasted. We need economists who understand the root cause of the Great Recession and an Administration who listens.
Much of the population including the NYT easily slip into the false belief that jobs and middle class wealth are created by deregulation of banks and businesses. Deregulation obviously leads to corporate profits and a rising stock market. So, it just seems so "obvious" to everyone that deregulation should also create jobs. People are so sure of this falsehood that they are easily convinced that in spite of recent Stock Market record highs there just hasn't been enough deregulation and yet more deregulation will surely create more jobs.
High levels of deregulation started in the 1980's. With perfect, strong correlation, pay stagnation started at the same time along with explosive growth of corporate profits (not wages) and growth of a very small class of exceptionally rich. The population and our leaders need to look at the economic facts rather than exploring in their own minds "what just seems reasonable" as explained by corporations and the politicians put into office by them. The Great Recession and the present Stock Market bubble -- with low worker wages -- ought to be proof. Apparently not.
Much of the population including the NYT easily slip into the false belief that jobs and middle class wealth are created by deregulation of banks and businesses. Deregulation obviously leads to corporate profits and a rising stock market. So, it just seems so "obvious" to everyone that deregulation should also create jobs. People are so sure of this falsehood that they are easily convinced that in spite of recent Stock Market record highs there just hasn't been enough deregulation and yet more deregulation will surely create more jobs.
High levels of deregulation started in the 1980's. With perfect, strong correlation, pay stagnation started at the same time along with explosive growth of corporate profits (not wages) and growth of a very small class of exceptionally rich. The population and our leaders need to look at the economic facts rather than exploring in their own minds "what just seems reasonable" as explained by corporations and the politicians put into office by them. The Great Recession and the present Stock Market bubble -- with low worker wages -- ought to be proof. Apparently not.
1
It is becoming abundantly clear that this administration is NOT going to be run by data, science, math or even facts. It will be run by sycophants, yes men\women and ideologues that will justify the means by the end they see fit.
Policy and markets ( around the world ) will be moved by the numbers that this administration puts out. With the administration shutting down the free press and elevating the extreme right press, those numbers will become propaganda.
Watch.
This administration's participants ( especially with its leader ) will have stock in a whole host of companies and industry sectors that policy will be enacted to enrich them.
Of course, we won't be able to see it all going on because no tax returns are being released, coupled with the entire leader's family surrounding him in positions of power.
This is what you voted for people. ( at least a clear minority of you )
Policy and markets ( around the world ) will be moved by the numbers that this administration puts out. With the administration shutting down the free press and elevating the extreme right press, those numbers will become propaganda.
Watch.
This administration's participants ( especially with its leader ) will have stock in a whole host of companies and industry sectors that policy will be enacted to enrich them.
Of course, we won't be able to see it all going on because no tax returns are being released, coupled with the entire leader's family surrounding him in positions of power.
This is what you voted for people. ( at least a clear minority of you )
2
Basically the Trump cabinet is a confederacy of dunces if you look at their governmental experience or relevance to foreign affairs, public service or other areas. Business people and billionaires like Trump himself see everything through a lens of profit, usually personal profit. They do not see the needs of the working class, the disabled, the minorities, or general citizenry of the country. This cabinet lacks depth; it lacks experience; and it lacks dedication to public service or American ideals.
Betsy De Vos failed her first test, and did not protect students from the bigotry of Sessions and Trump. Pompeo said during his hearing that he opposed torture, but after his appointment suddenly he is open to torture. Mattis opposed a Musli ban in the past; now he supports it. Many of the cabinet picks are anti-environment. Mnuchin, the foreclosure king with a racist past, will definitely not care about struggling Americans and their financial issues. A retired Marine general has put the entire machinery in place based on his military background for the mass deportations of civilians at great human cost, a crime against humanity. Sessions continually denied that he was a racist or bigot, and one of his first actions was to target the vulnerable transgender students in an ugly way.
This is the richest cabinet in U.S. history, with the least diversity in terms of understanding what average Americans deal with or what the government must accomplish or anything else.
Betsy De Vos failed her first test, and did not protect students from the bigotry of Sessions and Trump. Pompeo said during his hearing that he opposed torture, but after his appointment suddenly he is open to torture. Mattis opposed a Musli ban in the past; now he supports it. Many of the cabinet picks are anti-environment. Mnuchin, the foreclosure king with a racist past, will definitely not care about struggling Americans and their financial issues. A retired Marine general has put the entire machinery in place based on his military background for the mass deportations of civilians at great human cost, a crime against humanity. Sessions continually denied that he was a racist or bigot, and one of his first actions was to target the vulnerable transgender students in an ugly way.
This is the richest cabinet in U.S. history, with the least diversity in terms of understanding what average Americans deal with or what the government must accomplish or anything else.
1
If I remember correctly, A. Greenspan won no less than a Nobel prize for his expertise in economics. For all his acumen, charts, and algorithms, he totally missed seeing one of the worst recessions in the last 100 years. The difference between an imperative science and a true science ( say physics ) is that economic algorithms, formulas, charts are based on observations only with no thought of the underlying reasons while those of physics are based on understanding underlying principles. I do not mean to imply that all economists are worthless. I value quite highly the opinions of Paul Krugman for these opinions seem based on logic and are rational thought and I value his insights most highly.
Sorry, Greenspan never won a Nobel Prize in economics. And I'm willing to bet he never will.
1
Alan Greenspan has never been awarded the Nobel Prize.
1
Truth, science and decency have gone missing from the US government with our new despotic leader. The illiterate dude with the small hands sitting in the Oval Office knows what's best, in his tiny mind, for America.
4
Two factors determine whether Trump will take into account advice from any given person. First, is the person extremely rich? If so, Trump is more likely to consider their advice because their wealth proves to him that they very smart. Second, is the potential advisor telling Trump what he wants to hear? Either pure sycophants or folks who actually believe the emotionally charged falsehoods upon which Trumpism is based are acceptable.
A corollary is that advisors who lack great wealth are only to be heard if they agree with Trump. Academics are almost never billionaires. Therefore Trump will only appoint an economist whom he believes will rubber stamp all that Trump says.
A corollary is that advisors who lack great wealth are only to be heard if they agree with Trump. Academics are almost never billionaires. Therefore Trump will only appoint an economist whom he believes will rubber stamp all that Trump says.
4
Professor Mullainathan presents a good job description of the analytical work provided by the council of economic advisers at the White House.
However, it left out the question of how effective is the council's impact on policy making.
For example, has any president ever consulted the council before launching a major economic policy initiative? did the council produce any policy paper, prior to 2008/9, on the dangers of a financial industry out of control?
The council of economic advisers has been good for the CV of academic economists doing a stint at the White House. However, its impact on policy making has been null.
However, it left out the question of how effective is the council's impact on policy making.
For example, has any president ever consulted the council before launching a major economic policy initiative? did the council produce any policy paper, prior to 2008/9, on the dangers of a financial industry out of control?
The council of economic advisers has been good for the CV of academic economists doing a stint at the White House. However, its impact on policy making has been null.
4
It is becoming more and more apparent that our country will have to take a severe economic hit before the conservatives wake up and decide that their future is as important as the non-Trumpers. These words are easy to type but difficult to think about. We have had enough financial pain in the lower and middle class and now it looks like we might face a lot more.
4
That's my feeling also. Unless conservatives and Trump supporters suffer as much as minorities and others will under Trump, they don't care. The loss of a job, of their buying power, a hit to their savings, not being able to pay for a needed surgery or cancer treatment, having a child or someone in their family suffer from bad water or bad air, losing a son or daughter in a Trump war -- maybe this will make them reconsider their support for Trump.
Trump supporters live in a delusional fact-free, science-free bubble that is kept floating by Trump's gassy incoherent tweets, the hot air of Fox, Breitbart et al, and by all the propaganda they are fed constantly.
Without deprogramming or a direct, probably very rough, encounter with reality, these cultists could care less about economics, science, facts, the Constitution, or anything else. They will wave their Russian flags at CPAC beaming away proudly and unaware.
Trump supporters live in a delusional fact-free, science-free bubble that is kept floating by Trump's gassy incoherent tweets, the hot air of Fox, Breitbart et al, and by all the propaganda they are fed constantly.
Without deprogramming or a direct, probably very rough, encounter with reality, these cultists could care less about economics, science, facts, the Constitution, or anything else. They will wave their Russian flags at CPAC beaming away proudly and unaware.
2
The only consequences of interest to Trump is how the tweet will play in Peoria the next day. The long term impact of any policy is of no concern, which is why Steve Bannon has Trump's ear and Council of Economic Advisers have been moved to the back of the bus.
3
To see favor in an economist, Trump would need to a) understand the concept of unintended consequences and b) care, neither of which he is capable.
9
Anyone who doesn't think that this president's goal is to dismantle our republic should be watching more closely. He has named those who seek to rid the government of many of its most important roles by naming people to the cabinet whose goal is to destroy the very agencies they now head. He places a political operative (that is the kindest way I can think of to describe Bannon) on the National Security team. He places his children in meetings at which they have no business being. He rejects science. He excludes the experts from every position possible. He continues to flout the emoluments clause and other rules governing his office. Congress needs to take notice. They need to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate this man and his actions. He needs to be stopped, the sooner the better for America and its citizens.
11
http://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/19/business/business-forum-it-s-all-too-e...[WswTia,1]
''What should we do about problem X?'' (where X may be inflation, productivity, unemployment, or some other public problem) is a question commonly posed and answered by economists. But it is a question designed to produce disagreement. The issues are only partly technical; the rest involves value judgments.
Should America raise unemployment to stop inflation? Different economists have different answers, even if they agree technically on the distribution of gains and losses from an increase in unemployment.
To find professional economic disagreements, a different question must be asked. Liberal and conservative economists most frequently disagree on who 'should' be hurt and who 'should' be helped. Their technical disagreements on who will be hurt and who will be helped are much less frequent.
''What should we do about problem X?'' (where X may be inflation, productivity, unemployment, or some other public problem) is a question commonly posed and answered by economists. But it is a question designed to produce disagreement. The issues are only partly technical; the rest involves value judgments.
Should America raise unemployment to stop inflation? Different economists have different answers, even if they agree technically on the distribution of gains and losses from an increase in unemployment.
To find professional economic disagreements, a different question must be asked. Liberal and conservative economists most frequently disagree on who 'should' be hurt and who 'should' be helped. Their technical disagreements on who will be hurt and who will be helped are much less frequent.
Donald Trump likes to keep it simple. Business people seem to know all that is really important to know about the economy. That's how they made their money. Trump of course famously was up and down and was not in the least abashed to rip people off. The examples of Trump's selections is that they are tax averse and made their money because other people lost theirs. So one can infer that sharks are going to get Trump's ear. Reagan, conversely, was doctrinaire. He felt that tax cuts and deregulation would get the gov't off peoples back. An immense military build up and a full scale in confrontation with the USSR were all parts of Reagan's agenda. The national debt exploded and people yowled over the increased threat of nuclear war. Reagan had advisors that he listened to about the debt and the need to dial back the cold war. Of course more importantly Gorbachev was way ahead of him. Reagan was a prince compared to the troll who now inhabits the WH. Reagan "lucked out" internationally because of the vicious Iran-Iraq War (which the US worked hard to keep going) and the drop in oil prices. After the Carter recession pent up demand in the economy led to a boom during the Reagan's years. Trump wants to manufacture a boom of his own but the economic cycle is too far along. It seems Trump would be wise to seek advice from economists and save the country from a dangerous unregulated bubble that could be as bad as one that led to the recession in 2008.
3
The Trumpler administration is making huge mistakes which may crash the economy, and they could care less.
The US economy revives with influxes of immigrants.
Immigration into the US peaked in 2007, has been declining since 2008.
The Trumpler administration's acceleration of this trend with deportations for anything or nothing is a dangerous policy.
Further, after 20 trillion was spent on the 16 years wars after the uninvestigated crimes of 9/11, there is a great need for careful and necessary government spending. Instead, we have increased spending on increased numbers of ICE agents many of whom are spending their time arresting and deporting immigrants with paperwork problems who have a broken tail light or who jay walk.
What a complete waste of taxpayer money which is undermining recovery of the economy in the US.
An economist could tell you this.
And the failure to rely upon economists to steer the economy into improvements, is a mistake.
Following the lead of some loser who bankrupted out 6 times, instead of an economist, is a recipe for disaster.
The US economy revives with influxes of immigrants.
Immigration into the US peaked in 2007, has been declining since 2008.
The Trumpler administration's acceleration of this trend with deportations for anything or nothing is a dangerous policy.
Further, after 20 trillion was spent on the 16 years wars after the uninvestigated crimes of 9/11, there is a great need for careful and necessary government spending. Instead, we have increased spending on increased numbers of ICE agents many of whom are spending their time arresting and deporting immigrants with paperwork problems who have a broken tail light or who jay walk.
What a complete waste of taxpayer money which is undermining recovery of the economy in the US.
An economist could tell you this.
And the failure to rely upon economists to steer the economy into improvements, is a mistake.
Following the lead of some loser who bankrupted out 6 times, instead of an economist, is a recipe for disaster.
4
If mass immigration was the panacea for the economy that the left keeps claiming, the last 40 years, the period of greatest immigration in u.s. history, would have been the best of the u.s history. It hasn't been. Stagnant wages, the dissapearance of the middle class and the loss of good jobs have marked this period. Who could have guessed that importing unskilled, uneducated people with huge families needing a lot of social services wouldn't have fixed the economy? The "expert economists" sure didn't.
Anti-economics is no different than anti-science. Both lead to ruin. But in the meantime, the facts are bent out of the way so those in power can have their way. Fanatics and terrorists do exactly the same thing: create an alternative view that supports their strategy.
Power does as it will within accepted fact structures but for it to really go wild, it needs to break out and control the narrative. But in the end, reality always wins. Trumpism is playing with fire and they know it. Their blitzkrieg strategy is to pillage as much as possible before they finally get stopped.
Worried that they're missing out, others of their ilk will leap in to stop the rampage. America is the world's biggest fattest piggy bank and when the bank is ready for a withdrawal, one or another Establishment group will make a run at it. The Trump wrecking crew is feeding now but will overstep and take too much. The elephants are eyeing each other.
We're watching an Establishment feeding frenzy and soon the separate interest groups will start shoving each other away from the trough.
The robber baron group of Wall Street are gearing up to pull the plug on the economy as they did in 2001 and 2008, for a RInse and Repeat. This will ruin the economy again, in their favor, but they may be able to blame the Republicans and push them out. Were they to do this, they'd be heros. After all, no one wants to kill the golden goose.
Power does as it will within accepted fact structures but for it to really go wild, it needs to break out and control the narrative. But in the end, reality always wins. Trumpism is playing with fire and they know it. Their blitzkrieg strategy is to pillage as much as possible before they finally get stopped.
Worried that they're missing out, others of their ilk will leap in to stop the rampage. America is the world's biggest fattest piggy bank and when the bank is ready for a withdrawal, one or another Establishment group will make a run at it. The Trump wrecking crew is feeding now but will overstep and take too much. The elephants are eyeing each other.
We're watching an Establishment feeding frenzy and soon the separate interest groups will start shoving each other away from the trough.
The robber baron group of Wall Street are gearing up to pull the plug on the economy as they did in 2001 and 2008, for a RInse and Repeat. This will ruin the economy again, in their favor, but they may be able to blame the Republicans and push them out. Were they to do this, they'd be heros. After all, no one wants to kill the golden goose.
1
I question whether President Trump is well enough versed in economics to understand any advice he would be given by academic economists. Furthermore, he speaks and acts like he alone has all the answers and, therefore, need not seek nor heed advice. And that question applies to other issues as well--military, international relations, judicial, education, health, urban affairs, et. al.
4
Spot on. Trump and his cabinet are very pro-business. Pro-business is not a bad thing unless it trumps (sorry) other perspectives, such as that of labor, taxpayers, and other issues such as the damage caused by long-term income and wealth inequality. Ironically, it is that inequality that created the economic conditions that so affected the middle class who came out for Trump. Unless that broader perspective is considered, no amount of transactional policies like taxing imports is going to fix what ails us.
5
Much in economic theory is hard to grasp. I know, I took courses in the subject as part of my majors in college and grad school. I'd never claim any expertise. And economists can differ. Harry Truman wanted one-armed economic advisors to avoid them saying "on one hand, but on the other hand"
And I have far less confidence in unproven GOP theories like "trickle down," Arthur Laffer's curve, as well as the perennial cry of tax cuts for the wealthy. I also remember how conservatives fought Mr. Obama's wish for a stimulus program when the economy was on the rocks. Keynes was widely discredited by conservatives. Now, when the economy has recovered, Mr. Trump proposes it, coupled of course with huge tax cuts.
Mr. Trump is only listening to the people he wants to listen to. The absence of academic economic advisors is troubling.
And I have far less confidence in unproven GOP theories like "trickle down," Arthur Laffer's curve, as well as the perennial cry of tax cuts for the wealthy. I also remember how conservatives fought Mr. Obama's wish for a stimulus program when the economy was on the rocks. Keynes was widely discredited by conservatives. Now, when the economy has recovered, Mr. Trump proposes it, coupled of course with huge tax cuts.
Mr. Trump is only listening to the people he wants to listen to. The absence of academic economic advisors is troubling.
11
Insularity and bias. From the folks who brought us neoliberalism that perpetual motion machine of economic progress.
1
Yet just one more 'sign' that we are living in a gilded era where money and profits take precedence above and over any and all other reasonable discussions and advice on how to run a functioning democracy, where there is at least a modicum of sense when it comes to providing equity of access to resources.
Trumps 'brand' of beltway 'leadership' is more concerned with using belligerent distraction in an effort (so far exceedingly successful) to keep 'we the people' focused less on serious problems that needed solving ten years ago, i.e. soaring health care costs, decades overdue domestic infrastructure repair and renovation, returning bloated college tuition costs back to affordable rates, and instead forces the populace to continue arguing with itself ad infinitum, so that nothing ever gets accomplished. It keeps the current powers safe from actually DOING anything about anything serious. Therefore, no blame for- raising taxes, fixing health care, renovating our infrastructure. In other words, we have a sham government, working not for the people, but for themselves and their billionaire friends and family. What a country.
Trumps 'brand' of beltway 'leadership' is more concerned with using belligerent distraction in an effort (so far exceedingly successful) to keep 'we the people' focused less on serious problems that needed solving ten years ago, i.e. soaring health care costs, decades overdue domestic infrastructure repair and renovation, returning bloated college tuition costs back to affordable rates, and instead forces the populace to continue arguing with itself ad infinitum, so that nothing ever gets accomplished. It keeps the current powers safe from actually DOING anything about anything serious. Therefore, no blame for- raising taxes, fixing health care, renovating our infrastructure. In other words, we have a sham government, working not for the people, but for themselves and their billionaire friends and family. What a country.
8
The problem is that the President's economic advisors haven't been a good representation of the discipline but economists with a huge political ax to grind, perfectly willing to advise outside their discipline. The Council frequently does not include mainstream economists who very well might be at odds with each other. Often one sees the economic advisors more like the presidents lawyers. IE people more intent on providing cover for policy instead of making it better on creation based on their discipline.
Maybe it is time for economists to do their jobs from positions based on peer review than the power of the bully pulpit.
Maybe it is time for economists to do their jobs from positions based on peer review than the power of the bully pulpit.
4
Just because there is no economist in the cabinet, then we should complain and criticize the current administration is nonsense. By the same token, why no one is complaining that there are so many Ivy leaguers in the government key positions. They don't know how the regular folks live and thus cannot represent the whole population. Some of them should be replaced with more ordinary folks graduated from Texas A&M or University of Kansas or alike. As long as they can do the job by asking key professionals or key academics, I don't think it is a problem at all.
2
In point of fact, the Cabinet he has selected has just those "ordinary" credentials. Rick Perry was a D student at Texas A&M. He has been chosen to lead the Department he wanted to abolish but forgot the name of. He knows next to nothing about the Dept of Energy's portfolio. Scott Pruitt went to schools like the University of Tulsa. No Ivy Leaguer him. He has no expertise in science or environmental studies. He has always been a paid shill of the fossil fuel industry and wants to blow up the EPA and now will do so. The problem, however, is not the schools they went to. It's their ideology. They don't want to do the job well.
16
Facists don't care about economics. In fact they get rich by making the rules of economic and not by understanding economics. They exploit everyone that they can in the process. Sure looks like what's happening now.
14
This is well worth reporting, but hardly surprising. We have known for years that Republican politicians strive to keep sound economic analysis out of the national conversation, because only a few less-than-stellar economists will argue in favor of their extremist policy proposals. Unless Pres. Trump's advisers were able to "pack" the Council with those few sycophants, they would have to suffer through a constant barrage of criticism at the meetings where they want to agree on a series of agenda items. Naturally, people who study deeply and know their subject must be excluded from the decision-making process.
7
Actually, it's brains -- specifically, pre-frontal lobes -- that have been demoted. Only stands to reason, since we are living in an Orwellian, post-fact, ready-fire-aim-(poste-haste) society at the moment, one increasingly dominated by authoritarian rabble-rousers in the mold of Mussolini.
It's now fashionable to be extreme, not only when it comes to sports, but also when it comes to self-expression.
This is the era of extreme sports, extreme vetting, extreme phone calls to other world leaders, and extreme denunciations of some of the most respected news sources the world has ever known. Our President doesn't "disagree" with those with whom he disagrees, he calls them "the enemy of the people."
By extension, it's not just economists, but anyone researches and thinks carefully about a complex subject is, potentially, an "enemy of the people."
I sure hope this era ends before it goes up in smoke.
It's now fashionable to be extreme, not only when it comes to sports, but also when it comes to self-expression.
This is the era of extreme sports, extreme vetting, extreme phone calls to other world leaders, and extreme denunciations of some of the most respected news sources the world has ever known. Our President doesn't "disagree" with those with whom he disagrees, he calls them "the enemy of the people."
By extension, it's not just economists, but anyone researches and thinks carefully about a complex subject is, potentially, an "enemy of the people."
I sure hope this era ends before it goes up in smoke.
16
I see this as a matter field of view to borrow an optical instruments metaphor. The academic economist has a wide field of view, while the business expert is much more narrowly focused. Sometimes a narrow focus is critical to move forward and avoid the dreaded 'analysis paralysis'. But the narrow focus is also a lot like having blinders on, and catastrophic collisions become much more likely. For my sensibilities, I think limiting your field of view, in the role of leader of the free world, is incredibly 'short-sighted' and dangerous.
6
Your article presumes that Trump is interest in wise policies, and a concern about consequences. My sense is that he is only interested in self-aggrandizement, lashing out at those who disagree with him, and promoting fears, usually false or exaggerated, followed by presenting himself as the only one who can save us.
So if attacking Muslims worldwide gives us more terrorists, so what. It only raises fears, increasing the desire for him as a grandiose savior. If economic policies cause increased hardship in demographics that voted for him, so what. He can always push them to further scapegoating of Muslims, Mexicans, people using the bathroom. Anxiety and panic do not lead to rational thinking, which would demolish him.
Concern for the future of the public he is supposed to be representing is not his agenda.
So if attacking Muslims worldwide gives us more terrorists, so what. It only raises fears, increasing the desire for him as a grandiose savior. If economic policies cause increased hardship in demographics that voted for him, so what. He can always push them to further scapegoating of Muslims, Mexicans, people using the bathroom. Anxiety and panic do not lead to rational thinking, which would demolish him.
Concern for the future of the public he is supposed to be representing is not his agenda.
8
I pray that the traumatic stress of the Trump administration will inspire us with the determination we need to amend our Constitution. We need to end political parties, campaign contributions and advertising for federal elective offices, and instead provide a uniform framework of vetting including educational and work history requirements and background checks, venues for the candidates' to present campaign materials, and debates. We have managed to protect our children from tobacco and alcohol ads, let's protect our country from incompetence, foreign domination and oligarchy. Partisan politics puts the parties ahead of the citizens, and donations are nothing more than bribes. Both should be illegal.
2
Bad ideas proliferate in the Trump administration. But there is good news if not somewhat backhanded. With one bad decision after another - Russia, Australia, Mexico, Obamacare, Immigrant ban, Groping women, Frisk & Search, Huge deficit with tax cuts, Private jails, Press slander, Continual Lies, Poor choice of High Level Officials, Bannon, No tax return, Praise for torture, 8 Bankruptcies, Pandering to oligarchs, Protectionism, Attacking Secret Service, Racism, Hate Crimes, Bathrooms, Roe vs Wade, and Birtherism - no President could possibly survive. He will soon be gone and the world will breathe a sigh of relief.
Now on economists - two broad schools exist Chicago (Hayek etc.) and Cambridge UK (Keynes). There are merits in both schools but at different times in the business (and economic) cycle. But neither will do very well if bad decisions on social issues, as listed above, continue to play havoc. Since the present Trump Government cannot tell a lie from the truth, economists who check facts are out of favour. As Keynes always stated 'when the facts change I change'. The Trump doctrine is 'when the facts change I change the facts'.
So there must be change back to Keynes' sensible doctrine. The alternative is too frightening and now Americans, and I am sure they can, need to bring their famed decency back. It is unimaginable that such decency is lost. So I, for one, am very optimistic for the USA.
Now on economists - two broad schools exist Chicago (Hayek etc.) and Cambridge UK (Keynes). There are merits in both schools but at different times in the business (and economic) cycle. But neither will do very well if bad decisions on social issues, as listed above, continue to play havoc. Since the present Trump Government cannot tell a lie from the truth, economists who check facts are out of favour. As Keynes always stated 'when the facts change I change'. The Trump doctrine is 'when the facts change I change the facts'.
So there must be change back to Keynes' sensible doctrine. The alternative is too frightening and now Americans, and I am sure they can, need to bring their famed decency back. It is unimaginable that such decency is lost. So I, for one, am very optimistic for the USA.
7
Oh yes, and the economists managed to predict the financial crisis of 2008 that devastated the mid-land and led ultimately to the election of President Trump. It is rather sad that the academic voice in government is represented by economists who love their useless models more than the real world. But the sad truth is that the mathematical models are simply a facade for ideological bias, as in Milton Friedman. So banish the economists, and see if the economy provides the jobs that so many Americans need.
6
Economist may have not predicted the financial melt down, but their response to it was pretty uniform. If you had a "business" response to it, then with decrease in tax revenues they would have advocated reduced expenditures. This was what happen in 1930 in response to that melt down. Unemployment rose to a high of 36%, as it is currently measured. If you use u6 measure it would be closer to 50%, which conservatives like to cite. Instead economist recommended a Keynesian stimulus. It worked, and would have worked even better had their not been coitious interuptus by the GOP and their failure to add the last 700 billion recommended by economist of every stripe. As it was employment rebounded so a Great Depression never appeared. Had economist had access to the underpinnings of the lack of appropriated evaluation of mortgage back securities, then they'd have known what to expect. That is more a private business issue. Which is why their is usually a balance between business leaders and economist.
6
The administration is interested in promoting a white supremacist, ant-globalist, protectionist set of policies. They are ideologically driven, not prosperity driven. Thus they are not interested in what economists have to say about the monetary effects of their policies.
6
no the administration is not interested in white supremacy- but they are against racial discrimination against the white majority.
We're learning Donald Trump is a light weight influenced by alpha males. We can base it on his speeches that he is compulsive, fixated, and lacks a filter.
He doesn't interpret boredom, ridicule or annoyance from the faces in the audience. He just goes on and on.
Suffice it to say is all he needs is Bannon. The man with the agenda, who said Trump is his blunt instrument for the white powered nationalists wanting their own economic nationalism and culture.
Reince Preibus does the running around, since Bannon is sedentary, and must keep Trump under his spell. No one gets in. Even Trump's daughter has to tweet so he notices her.
He doesn't interpret boredom, ridicule or annoyance from the faces in the audience. He just goes on and on.
Suffice it to say is all he needs is Bannon. The man with the agenda, who said Trump is his blunt instrument for the white powered nationalists wanting their own economic nationalism and culture.
Reince Preibus does the running around, since Bannon is sedentary, and must keep Trump under his spell. No one gets in. Even Trump's daughter has to tweet so he notices her.
5
Having worked for a pro-active economist and financier on Wall Street, this latest upshot does not come as a surprise when the Nation does not have an officer-in-charge, but a major-dromo unable to release his tax statements, his censoring of the Press and let's forget about the rest of Trump's messy and half-baked vacuous and vague notions about our state of affairs.
Martin Feldstein is not interested in winning popularity contests. He most likely did not care in the 80s for 'Voodoo-Economics'. In the meantime, there is no point in protecting Trump's image but a waste of time at the expense of the Nation.
Is it too much to ask to have a President of the United States and a viable Cabinet? Is this a Dream?
Martin Feldstein is not interested in winning popularity contests. He most likely did not care in the 80s for 'Voodoo-Economics'. In the meantime, there is no point in protecting Trump's image but a waste of time at the expense of the Nation.
Is it too much to ask to have a President of the United States and a viable Cabinet? Is this a Dream?
6
Excellent argument for the Council by Sendhil Mullainathan. His paragraph at the end is advice to all cabinet members:
"It is important to have someone in the cabinet who is more interested in protecting academic integrity than in protecting business interests or the president’s image."
The harsh reality is that Trump and his supporters are emotionally bound and hence have no understanding of the value of research. What Sendhil writes here is an argument far too complex for President Trump to understand. But instead of taking in their their expertise, the results of which he needs to know, Trump simply ignores it. His followers would brand economic research as "elitism", a childish response. In their rush to the bottom, Trump supporters jettison thought.
The Council of Economic Advisers not only benefits an intelligent president, it also benefits us all. It is another source of economic research that we can read and use to evaluate economic strategy ourselves. I've always read news reports that explained the Council's findings on economic matters.
Sendhil is indeed correct. The affect of those base closings have real economic consequences that need to be researched using vetted models of the economy to understand their change to our society. They need to be researched by independent, academic sources.
Then I can read the results of work by the Council of Economic Advisers and understand more about our dynamic economy.
"It is important to have someone in the cabinet who is more interested in protecting academic integrity than in protecting business interests or the president’s image."
The harsh reality is that Trump and his supporters are emotionally bound and hence have no understanding of the value of research. What Sendhil writes here is an argument far too complex for President Trump to understand. But instead of taking in their their expertise, the results of which he needs to know, Trump simply ignores it. His followers would brand economic research as "elitism", a childish response. In their rush to the bottom, Trump supporters jettison thought.
The Council of Economic Advisers not only benefits an intelligent president, it also benefits us all. It is another source of economic research that we can read and use to evaluate economic strategy ourselves. I've always read news reports that explained the Council's findings on economic matters.
Sendhil is indeed correct. The affect of those base closings have real economic consequences that need to be researched using vetted models of the economy to understand their change to our society. They need to be researched by independent, academic sources.
Then I can read the results of work by the Council of Economic Advisers and understand more about our dynamic economy.
5
Aren't economists the geniuses who told us that globalization was an unmitigated good...a rising tide that would lift all boats? Aren't these the same guys who teach that the law of supply and demand is universal, except where illegal immigrant labor supply in the US is concerned?
These people are merely a priestly caste posing as scientists, selling their obfuscatory nonsense to the highest political bidder. Unemployment too high? Stop counting the unemployed. Inflation a problem? Change the basket of goods. With a shake of the mathematical wand your wish can become reality.
World trade thrived for millennia before the profession was invented by dropping the "political" from "political economy." And guess what? It will do just fine without these charlatans.
These people are merely a priestly caste posing as scientists, selling their obfuscatory nonsense to the highest political bidder. Unemployment too high? Stop counting the unemployed. Inflation a problem? Change the basket of goods. With a shake of the mathematical wand your wish can become reality.
World trade thrived for millennia before the profession was invented by dropping the "political" from "political economy." And guess what? It will do just fine without these charlatans.
8
Thanks for posting total nonsense. Economists as well as intelligent people predicted that globalization would have positive and negatives on the US economy but the positives would far outweigh the negatives. That has come to pass.
The only people trying to alter how unemployment is counted are imbecile tRUMP supporters. Unemployment has been calculated the same way for a long time but when reality doesn't fit their delusions, tRUMP supporter try to alter the metric.
The only people trying to alter how unemployment is counted are imbecile tRUMP supporters. Unemployment has been calculated the same way for a long time but when reality doesn't fit their delusions, tRUMP supporter try to alter the metric.
1
I always love comments about economics made by people who never took an economics class. Please read a real textbook about economics before posting comments like these. At least look at one at an online bookstore.
1
Much more emphasis is needed for the distinction between economics and business. Corporate interests and unlimited campaign money have driven the economy to its problems, not economists. Business ignores economics except for how to exploit it for short term profits. The Great Recession was directly caused by corporations, banks, who just had profits in mind.
The demotion of economists from the cabinet is only a dangerous symptom; the corporate Administration won't listen; they already thiink they "know". In this administration, economists wouldn't make a difference.
The Great Recession was compelling proof of the danger of allowing business to take a lead in driving economic decisions. Banks in particular, but industry in general demanded and got minimal regulation under the ruse that strong profits for industry yields a strong economy and many good jobs (a Trump favorite). The GR should have been proof, but apparently not, because a mere 10 years later we're following a similar path. Trump wants to reduce regulations even more to reduce industry costs and increase CEO and stockholder profits.
To economists the outcome is proven. Reduced regulation does not increase the number of well paying jobs and, as a result, it will not increase purchases of goods and services -- the fundamental of the economy. The present economy is staggering along on low paying jobs and astronomical consumer debt. Called a bubble. It will pop.
The demotion of economists from the cabinet is only a dangerous symptom; the corporate Administration won't listen; they already thiink they "know". In this administration, economists wouldn't make a difference.
The Great Recession was compelling proof of the danger of allowing business to take a lead in driving economic decisions. Banks in particular, but industry in general demanded and got minimal regulation under the ruse that strong profits for industry yields a strong economy and many good jobs (a Trump favorite). The GR should have been proof, but apparently not, because a mere 10 years later we're following a similar path. Trump wants to reduce regulations even more to reduce industry costs and increase CEO and stockholder profits.
To economists the outcome is proven. Reduced regulation does not increase the number of well paying jobs and, as a result, it will not increase purchases of goods and services -- the fundamental of the economy. The present economy is staggering along on low paying jobs and astronomical consumer debt. Called a bubble. It will pop.
9
Publish the last paragraph of Keynes's magnum opus:
The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas. Not, indeed, immediately, but after a certain interval; for in the field of economic and political philosophy there are not many who are influenced by new theories after they are twenty-five or thirty years of age, so that the ideas which civil servants and politicians and even agitators apply to current events are not likely to be the newest. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil.
The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas. Not, indeed, immediately, but after a certain interval; for in the field of economic and political philosophy there are not many who are influenced by new theories after they are twenty-five or thirty years of age, so that the ideas which civil servants and politicians and even agitators apply to current events are not likely to be the newest. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil.
10
We now have a President whose understanding of economics is very poor. This morning he scorned the press for not reporting that the national debt had decreased $12 billion in his first month. The fact is that it varied lfrom a low of $19.884 trillion to a high of $19.958 trillion—a range of $76 billion. Mr. Trump had nothing to do with this variation, it is simply the normal ebb and flow in the national debt, yet Trump blames the media for not giving him credit. A simple check would have saved him the embarrassment of reponsibility for fake news.
20
History proves that dictatorships do not grow out of strong and successful governments, but out of weak and helpless ones. If by democratic methods people get a government strong enough to protect them from fear and starvation, their democracy succeeds; but if they do not, they grow impatient. Therefore, the only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over its governance. - Franklin D. Roosevelt
6
You're too kind to him. The man cannot be embarrassed, and indeed, intends to distort the truth in every which way possible.
Economists are failed teachers/counselors from way back: The counter-cyclical benefits of deficit spending at the federal level have been standard economic teaching for fifty years. Name one Econ 101 A-student politician of public prominence who would affirm as much.
Deficit federal spending is evil and ill-advised per se, that is the mantra of American politics. Wrong as it might be in periods of high unemployment and recession.
The Federal Reserve Bank or the The Federal Reserve Bank for Bankers, which applies. The entire advising economics profession would answer incorrectly. The public would get it immediately.
Economists scoffed at John K. Galbraith who figured it out in the sixties: The game is socialism for the rich and free markets for the poor. He resorted to the press knowing the profession was out of touch with reality refusing to acknowledge the validity of what he had to say.
Oh the great irrelevance: economists. The game goes to the haves and fear mongers in service to the haves. Economists can leave the room without affecting public policy either way.
Deficit federal spending is evil and ill-advised per se, that is the mantra of American politics. Wrong as it might be in periods of high unemployment and recession.
The Federal Reserve Bank or the The Federal Reserve Bank for Bankers, which applies. The entire advising economics profession would answer incorrectly. The public would get it immediately.
Economists scoffed at John K. Galbraith who figured it out in the sixties: The game is socialism for the rich and free markets for the poor. He resorted to the press knowing the profession was out of touch with reality refusing to acknowledge the validity of what he had to say.
Oh the great irrelevance: economists. The game goes to the haves and fear mongers in service to the haves. Economists can leave the room without affecting public policy either way.
6
When I was working as a teaching assistant, I really enjoyed explaining aggregate supply and demand to freshman undergraduates. There were the standard graphs and formulas but I also used to draw arrows going up and down explaining the movement of interconnected events. If X goes up than Y goes down which then influences Z and so on. Some students got it. Other times you'd receive the blank stare of horror and dismay. That's really a thing in teaching.
Once I started working for private companies, my position was more or less the same. I was still paid to explain stuff to people. That's what most economists do for a living. You have a unique toolbox and a unique perspective but in the end you're paid to explain stuff. What changed was the student. High ranking executives don't care about understanding a subject. They have an unflinching single mindedness that will literally blow your hair back. They want to prove their point. That is all.
I truly disliked being the perpetually voice of doubt in a room full of people way more important than me. Director Dunce has a flashy new widget that he or she is trying to sell to the boss. Your unfortunate duty is to pull the leash in and say wait a minute. That doesn't often make you popular with the Alpha types. Aside from making enemies, you also run the risk of getting excluded from meetings. When executives don't want to hear, they stop listening.
That's what just happened here.
Once I started working for private companies, my position was more or less the same. I was still paid to explain stuff to people. That's what most economists do for a living. You have a unique toolbox and a unique perspective but in the end you're paid to explain stuff. What changed was the student. High ranking executives don't care about understanding a subject. They have an unflinching single mindedness that will literally blow your hair back. They want to prove their point. That is all.
I truly disliked being the perpetually voice of doubt in a room full of people way more important than me. Director Dunce has a flashy new widget that he or she is trying to sell to the boss. Your unfortunate duty is to pull the leash in and say wait a minute. That doesn't often make you popular with the Alpha types. Aside from making enemies, you also run the risk of getting excluded from meetings. When executives don't want to hear, they stop listening.
That's what just happened here.
19
Funny how supply and demand doesn't apply to illegal immigration, right? Supply of illegal, under the table laborers won't drive down wages... I'm sure you economists will come up with some excuse for why it doesn't work on leftist causes.
1
John. You have to remember when it comes to mass immigration, the lefts agenda suspends all logic. To anyone with an open mind, flooding the country with people with no skills, no education and lots of impoverished relatives is a sure fire economic boon ready to happen. The fact that it never happened hasn't dimmed their enthusiasm for keeping the border doors wide open.
1
Unfortunately economics, like so much of the academy, has become increasingly political over the last few decades to the point where there are now "their" economists and "our' economists that can, somehow, find economic justification for whatever the party wants. It becomes increasingly difficult for any politician or citizen to depend upon ANY economists pronouncements as the profession has allowed itself to be prostituted to their political masters.
The current immigration debate furnishes a great example. The law of supply and demand is one of the most well established maxims in economics and yet I have seen a number of "news" (fake news??) articles reporting that this or that economist has a study that shows that wages of lower skilled workers will not rise if the 20,000,000 illegal aliens, currently in the country, leave! This position is then trumpeted by the left to support it's, seeming, lack of compassion for lower income American citizens.
No explanation of why this complete repudiation of a fundamental law need be given. It is extremely unfortunate that once scientific disciplines have allowed themselves to be so ill used by the political class. Economists and climate "scientists" have only their own profession to blame for the collapse in public confidence in their pronouncements.
The current immigration debate furnishes a great example. The law of supply and demand is one of the most well established maxims in economics and yet I have seen a number of "news" (fake news??) articles reporting that this or that economist has a study that shows that wages of lower skilled workers will not rise if the 20,000,000 illegal aliens, currently in the country, leave! This position is then trumpeted by the left to support it's, seeming, lack of compassion for lower income American citizens.
No explanation of why this complete repudiation of a fundamental law need be given. It is extremely unfortunate that once scientific disciplines have allowed themselves to be so ill used by the political class. Economists and climate "scientists" have only their own profession to blame for the collapse in public confidence in their pronouncements.
11
So what about the other side of the wage story. Let assume 20 millions (not sure where you got that number) people were removed from the US. Please answer:
1.) How many Americans will take those jobs?
2.) If Americans don't take those jobs, what is the price impact to consumers for goods and services?
3.) What is the business cost and neighborhood impact of millions of the empty houses, stores fronts, apartments?
4.) What is the impact to retailers and local and state revenues?
5.) Will businesses be generous and increase wages to a point that it would make a different?
1.) How many Americans will take those jobs?
2.) If Americans don't take those jobs, what is the price impact to consumers for goods and services?
3.) What is the business cost and neighborhood impact of millions of the empty houses, stores fronts, apartments?
4.) What is the impact to retailers and local and state revenues?
5.) Will businesses be generous and increase wages to a point that it would make a different?
Simply put the labor market in which most illegals exist is different then those Americans are in. Americans want jobs that pay more and do not require large degrees of suffering. If you doubt me join me in a strawberry field, a lettuce field, orchard. You will quickly understand. Currently you can make ) $15 per hour in srawberry picking. It is well above the min. Wage. Normally there would be loads of teenagers willing to work at that wage. Instead you don't see any. Labor supply is determined by willingness, at the wage rate. There would be a wage, probably $25 dollars that would get them there. But that would make farming strawberries costly. In which case,, fewer are hired, which means illegals don't really affect other labor markets.
Guess then Donald can call others to find out what a strong versus a weak dollar means. Define what a GDP means, difference between deficit and debt, how the fed works, and other questions that he obviously does not know. He's got his son in Law and Bannon so who needs those elite economists?
3
The omission of economists from the council of economic advisors is consistent with the administration's "know nothing approach" to policy decisions. Rick Perry at energy didn't know that the department he heads was in charge of the country's nuclear arsenal. Betsy Devos the new head of the department of education never taught, studied education or sent anyone in her family to a public school. These are just few of the uninformed that Trump has chosen to lead. His general belief is that experts are overrated. Let's see how that presumption works out. My bet is not too well.
13
Trump and his Republican CPAC enablers will stoop as low as it takes to maintain their economic policy stranglehold on the American people. They will dispose of any intelligence report not fixed to their policy, attack any voting rights law, lie to counter any unfavorable media report, conspire with America's enemies to get elected, reverse any environmental regulation for their donors, make any obscene provocation.
The next major abomination we are about to see is a shooting war built on fixed intelligence to consolidate their authority and power over America. Think back to George W.'s playbook and his comment about "winning the trifecta" if you have any doubts.
The next major abomination we are about to see is a shooting war built on fixed intelligence to consolidate their authority and power over America. Think back to George W.'s playbook and his comment about "winning the trifecta" if you have any doubts.
23
Truth, knowledge, intelligence, memory, insight, wisdom, judgment, empathy have been highly regarded as desirable human attributes, but not by the Trump team.
Instead loyalty, obedience, racial and ethnic superiority, and unquestioning and blind acceptance of Trump's Tweets are in fashion in the "alt-right" world.
Instead loyalty, obedience, racial and ethnic superiority, and unquestioning and blind acceptance of Trump's Tweets are in fashion in the "alt-right" world.
25
This is the preliminary steps by Trump and Republicans selling their failed trickle down economic policies to the public. To convince voters how great these policies will work (this time) they will try and use "dynamic scoring" to pre-sell the promised benefits.
Dynamic scoring is is more wishful thinking than science. And trained economists are probably seen as the biggest road block to institute policies whose validity is based on dynamic scoring rather than facts.
This sounds like part of the strategy by the Trump/GOP/TP regime for making "dynamic scoring" the de jure force for forming and vetting the economic effects of their soon-to-be new (again) policies.
Dynamic scoring is is more wishful thinking than science. And trained economists are probably seen as the biggest road block to institute policies whose validity is based on dynamic scoring rather than facts.
This sounds like part of the strategy by the Trump/GOP/TP regime for making "dynamic scoring" the de jure force for forming and vetting the economic effects of their soon-to-be new (again) policies.
6
The "dismal science" meets an abysmal administration. It's interesting that economics was labeled "dismal" because economists at the time were not bowing to the "inevitability" of slavery, given Malthus' "inevitable" predictions of scarcity and poverty due to population expansion, so Thomas Carlyle labeled it "dismal" for not recognizing that poverty was "inevitable." The economists were right. Carlyle was wrong (and, in contemporary parlance, a racist). This abysmal administration insists on being Carlyle (and, yes, racist), insisting that terrorism is "inevitable" and only their strong-armed authoritarianism can prevent its explosion onto "our," meaning white soil. Carlyle was wrong as is this administration, with its Breitbartian Malthusian "ideas."
Mullainathian's otherwise admirable defense of economists sadly equates intelligence with the academic. There's something called business intelligence, although Trump exhibits little of it. Too many in the academy don't recognize business intelligence (and its ethics) and it's precisely that recognition that's needed in order to bring Trump's major failings into light. Trump is not and hasn't been a businessman. He is and has been a con man. Take away Bannon, Miller, and his other Breitbart goons (please) and Trump has no vision whatsoever, certainly not an economics vision and even less a business vision--a sense of how doing business together generates what the economic historian Deidre McCloskey calls virtues.
Mullainathian's otherwise admirable defense of economists sadly equates intelligence with the academic. There's something called business intelligence, although Trump exhibits little of it. Too many in the academy don't recognize business intelligence (and its ethics) and it's precisely that recognition that's needed in order to bring Trump's major failings into light. Trump is not and hasn't been a businessman. He is and has been a con man. Take away Bannon, Miller, and his other Breitbart goons (please) and Trump has no vision whatsoever, certainly not an economics vision and even less a business vision--a sense of how doing business together generates what the economic historian Deidre McCloskey calls virtues.
13
Economic policy will thus be driven by a paranoid view of the world (everyone is out to get us - especially government), rather than a rational view. This is the same as putting paranoid people in charge of scientific committees like Senator Inhofe and far-right media. Paranoia is what defines their thinking. Any real evidence that crosses paths with an irrational fear, gets rejected by the brain. It is a sub-conscious survival mechanism directly the result of evolution. Conservatives inherited more fear in their DNA than anyone else on the political spectrum and should not be in positions of public policy.
23
I see many comments reflecting the fact that economists have been wrong, that they are no predictors of the future. Well, we are not looking for fortune tellers. We are looking for educated perspectives that can be argued both pro and con. At least, their is an analysis that goes on to arrive at particular conclusions. In the brains of Trump and his close advisors, there is some sort of cauldron that simmers away, and then randomly spews out what they call facts. Anything that benefits their perspectives is a fact, anything that disagrees with them is false.
Wake up Congress!!!!
Wake up Congress!!!!
21
What Trump and his supporters don't get is that this is a new world, one not seen before. We are overpopulated, our resources are at its limits, our population is aging, pollution is no longer a local problem, global warming is affecting the planet and all that lives on it, the food supply is at it's limit, mass migration and refugees are no longer limited to a few trouble spots or events, and, we are more dependent than ever on global cooperation to survive. As a result, we need to think outside the box and plan for an uncertain future. Economists are trained to evaluate the possible scenarios, which can be debated and used to set policy. Politicians and the ordinary layperson cannot. The Chinese understand this and are well on their way while we want to turn back the clock. When all is said and done and since Trump does not trust anybody that has different ideas, it is easy to see we are on the wrong path seeking a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, not knowing that we are planning our own demise by seeking an earlier time which will never be realized.
26
As an ignorant man, Trump has no knowledge of, or appreciation for, careful and reasoned analysis. As someone who thinks he knows more than everyone else, regardless the subject, he has no need for accomplished academic opinion. He certainly has no desire for opposing views or constructive criticism.
He is truly the first no-nothing President, wanting nothing more than adoration from the unwashed masses, and all the money he can grab. The real dangerous presence, and the real power in this so-called administration is Bannon. A pseudo-intellectual who is mostly content plagiarizing French philosophers, he is a dangerous misanthrope. And, he has trump's ear at the moment.
This is a dangerous and sickening moment in this country's history.
He is truly the first no-nothing President, wanting nothing more than adoration from the unwashed masses, and all the money he can grab. The real dangerous presence, and the real power in this so-called administration is Bannon. A pseudo-intellectual who is mostly content plagiarizing French philosophers, he is a dangerous misanthrope. And, he has trump's ear at the moment.
This is a dangerous and sickening moment in this country's history.
75
Wasn't it Arthur Laffer who was Reagan's economist-of-choice? He told the Gipper's handlers what they wanted to hear. As for Martin Feldstein, his record on the financial crisis isn't reassuring. Economists, like the rest of us, are only right or wrong in retrospect. Unfortunately, Trump views the $20 trillion national debt as a millstone around the country's neck, rather than the market capitalization of the U.S. (Everyone celebrates Apple's market capitalization, without wondering how it will ever sell enough product to justify those valuations in the indefinite future. But the Treasury can't run out of dollars.) Trump told CPAC that there is no "global currency," apparently without realizing the benefits of the fact that the dollar is the global reserve currency. (Would you rather have the Chinese buy only U.S. companies when recycling the dollars we send them, or Treasuries, which are just interest-bearing dollars?) We entered WW II on the premise that the reserve currency (and global hegemony) would shift from the pound to the dollar when the war was won. Under the gold standard, our low interest rates would mean a steady gold drain; now we just have an outflow of paper--at par! As someone noted last year, Trump doesn't know what he doesn't know, or have a healthy fear of unknown unknowns. That's the real danger.
17
It isn't just Trump who dispenses with the advice of economists. The Republicans in the House of Representatives recently adopted a rule that values public lands at zero. Would any economist, or indeed anyone with common sense, agree? Of course not, but for a party anxious to transfer these lands to cronies, such advice would be inconvenient.
28
Why bother with economists when your only real goal is to cut taxes and regulations, the economy be damned? Why have somebody on board who will call out the harm you're doing?
21
Human intelligence has been demoted under fascist Trump along with any hint of regard for facts and data. Trump is a fake president, too incompetent to actually be president and so intellectually vacuous that he actually thinks disruption and chaos are policies. The dumbest person in the room.
I'll take economists any day over the asinine fool in the White House. Republican voters think he's doing a good job? That says a lot about their intellectual integrity, if they have any.
Eclectic Pragmatism — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
I'll take economists any day over the asinine fool in the White House. Republican voters think he's doing a good job? That says a lot about their intellectual integrity, if they have any.
Eclectic Pragmatism — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
17
Trump wanted to know which is better, a strong dollar or weak one. So he asked a retired general in the middle of the night.
This tells us three things: 1) He thought this was a military question, not an economic one - or he didn't have an economist to ask. 2) He thought this was a simple either-or question, typical of his zero-sum approach to many issues. 3) He is satisfied with quick off-the-cuff answers given without preparation on issues of major importance.
Let us hope that in the face of the Trumpistry that threatens our country's well-being, economists will speak out, and their insights will be well publicized, on every issue where the Republican White House and Congress neglect to consult them.
This tells us three things: 1) He thought this was a military question, not an economic one - or he didn't have an economist to ask. 2) He thought this was a simple either-or question, typical of his zero-sum approach to many issues. 3) He is satisfied with quick off-the-cuff answers given without preparation on issues of major importance.
Let us hope that in the face of the Trumpistry that threatens our country's well-being, economists will speak out, and their insights will be well publicized, on every issue where the Republican White House and Congress neglect to consult them.
27
The more that production is automated, the more people must rely on ownership of means of production for income.
4
Economists have predicted 9 of the last 5 recessions... One of my all time favorite quotes.
After the world wide economic melt down of 2008 I cancelled my subscription to the Economist. This had much more to do with me than the magazine. I simply had not used the information from the magazine--which I had read for many years--to prepare for what happened to the economy, particularly the portion which most effected me. I had read the magazine like a newspaper, not like a road map or even an advice column.
It is difficult to forge a road map from economic data. There is just so much of it. Perhaps if the Council could reduce it's data to a tweet, the President might recognize its value.
After the world wide economic melt down of 2008 I cancelled my subscription to the Economist. This had much more to do with me than the magazine. I simply had not used the information from the magazine--which I had read for many years--to prepare for what happened to the economy, particularly the portion which most effected me. I had read the magazine like a newspaper, not like a road map or even an advice column.
It is difficult to forge a road map from economic data. There is just so much of it. Perhaps if the Council could reduce it's data to a tweet, the President might recognize its value.
7
Not all economists are corrupt. Honest economists have been calling out the fallacies of "free trade" and problems of globalization for decades. Unfortunately the economists who get promoted to positions of influence are often the sellouts.
8
Yeah right. The same guys who've given us: global trade, unlimited immigration, supply side economics, shipped our manufacturing jobs over seas, killed the middle class, no job raises in 40 years, letting Wall Street have their way with us, deregulation of the financial services, trillions in debt. Really going to miss their insightful thoughts and analysis of the world and how to make it all work. Works kinda like when we turned health care into an industry by having it run by corporations and economic analysts.
11
And you think professional economists dictated policy, not politicians and their large corporate backers? With nonpartisan professionals out of the way, the latter will have even freer rein to work their will. You are deceived by the incessant assault on expertise, knowledge and intellectuals. The nation -- and the world -- ultimately will pay a heavy price for sidelining those who know what they're talking about, and believe in evidence rather than propaganda.
23
Oh, ok. I get it. If the know nothing idiot happens to subscribe to your brand voodoo economics he's a professional and an expert. If you don't subscribe to his/her voodoo, they're a hack. Please give us the check list of how we tell them apart? Reagan gave us the ongoing supply side disaster. Obama gave us the bank/wall street bail out (regular people lost the houses and jobs) the bankers and Wall Street kept theirs along with their bonuses and tax rates. The point is, we are always at the mercy of people that really don't have any idea of what's going on and what to do about it. They have an agenda, just like everybody else. Call me back when economics becomes real science.
Al Idaho: I guess you also believe in witchcraft. Those snarky economists in their covens spellbinding the masters of industry forcing them to do their sinister dirty work, menacing and bringing down our mighty economy with just a few words and works of magic. Come home, Al, leave the taverns behind and work in the fields with dirt on your hands to fight the flight of fancy that besets you.
1
China paid dearly for the culture revolution with the lost decades where intellectual were purged; so will this administration headed by the feckless bully from the white house. It took another decade for the intellectual to repair and mend the damages created by the disastrous chaos and the US will fall further behind at the end when Trump term ends.
38
At first glance this seems to be another symptom of Trump’s megalomania (that he feels he knows more about everything than anyone,) even people who’ve devoted their life to studying it. In this case, it is more than that. He has been promoting a combination of tax cuts combined with a huge increase in expenditures in some areas (military, infrastructure, ICE, wall building) with decreases in others (Obama care, government payrolls, the arts, foreign aid,) while proclaiming the deficit will shrink with his plans. Even conservative economists would be quick to point out the fallacies in his plan. They would also be critical of his protective trade policies. For that reason, they had to go. In fact anyone critical must be eliminated (media, intelligence, economics, etc.)
43
Military costs coups be sharply curtailed with a return to the draft where conscripts are all single 18 year olds paid a $25 monthly stipend because their food, clothing and shelter costs are covered. It has been reported that approximately 60% of current military personnel are married, bringing the huge cost of family housing and dependent education with them. Imaging the savings if all our enlisted lived in WWII style wood frame barracks.
4
When an economic professor at my college talked of the benefits of gobalization without the consequences to American workers, I knew he had sold himself to a biased view of ecomonics, and was the representative not commited to teaching anallysis. By the way, if had turly believed and acted on what my 101 course taught, I would be in a better position, maybe better place. Unformately for the American worker, they elected a snake oil salesman,
4
Yes, there are benefits to globalization, but where we missed the boat was to destroy unionization. What this did was to make the worker subservient to Management who in turn was subservient to the stock holders. It was left to the work, who lost his or her job to globalization to find another job. This is where government could have stepped in by demanding all corporations put aside a fund to retrain their workers and find them new jobs, if they went into bankruptcy or relocated outside the country. The same assurances that pollution control regs include for mining companies to clean up after completing an extraction process. But no, this would have reduced profits for stockholders and bonus's for CEO's. Bring lost jobs back will not solve the employment problem, it will only make it worse. No way can a product made in a developing country be made cheaper back home. We may have more jobs in the short term, but sales will quickly erase whatever gains were made by these decisions. Economists are needed to explain that logic Trump and his followers.
4
Yet manufacturing companies in the US are struggling for skilled labor. In China, the government trains their workers in the high tech skills the industry needs. The American educational system is still producing low skilled workers for jobs that don't exist in any country anymore. Worse, our failing infrastructure makes a reliable modern supply chain difficult to achieve in this country. Critical components can sit for weeks to months waiting on broken lockes or rail lines. Companies used to keep a lot of stock on hand to compensate, but that is costly and inefficient.
Without globalisation, American companies would have rapidly been out-competed in the global market by countries that actually invested in their infrastructure and workers. Some industries such as textiles moved over seas for cheap labor, but others moved because they needed reliability that the US doesn't offer.
Without globalisation, American companies would have rapidly been out-competed in the global market by countries that actually invested in their infrastructure and workers. Some industries such as textiles moved over seas for cheap labor, but others moved because they needed reliability that the US doesn't offer.
1
Let's remember that Trump wants ignorance in economics. He is utterly ignorant of anything but his own interests and can't even begin to understand the logical consequences of economic actions. He has never shown any deep interest in anything more than women's chest sizes, massaging his own ego and how to manage his ridiculous hair. Having people who actually think about how the economy works: how quaint.
23
As much as I despise Trump, I do believe that the economics profession has served us very poorly, and that economists deserve to be dethroned from their preeminent position. The economics profession is no better able to predict the future than weathermen. Like weathermen they may have a great deal of technical training, but all that expertise is useless when looking more than a very short time into the future. Economists routinely ignore all sorts of quality of life factors that can't easily be quantified and fit into their neat theoretical models, and they all have political biases and axes to grind.
11
David -- you are insulting weather prediction. It's real, it works ... though evidently not to your entire satisfaction. the computers that predict the weather (which is what it is now) do a far better job than humans can do alone, and the statistical performance of the models keeps getting better.
However there are fundamental reasons why longer-term (more than two weeks) weather prediction will never get good -- this is reality.
I won't speak to economics, not my specialty.
However there are fundamental reasons why longer-term (more than two weeks) weather prediction will never get good -- this is reality.
I won't speak to economics, not my specialty.
4
Economist are the glue that keeps this crazy train on the tracks. They have never claimed to be forecasters, that is not what they do by in large. Every year politicians claim they will put chickens in all the pots and every year economist politely point out that they don't have enough chickens, or maybe they do but they're going to have to take away peoples pots. Then politicians come up with there new plan which is first ignore all economist and then put chickens in all the pots, of course that plan never works and usually leads to economic problems which they then blame on economist. luckily every once in a while we get a wise politician, aka Obama, who listened at times to economist. I think economist did two wonderful things that defined and maybe saved the 20th century they formed the world trade organization with the goal of preventing war and famines through economics, and the track record for that is good no war or famines yet amongst any members, and they formed central banks that took control of the money supply away from politicians and used it to dampen the effects of the economic cycle, which has been by in large an great success, nothing like 1929 has happened since.
1
I agree very much
Economists have rarely forecasted anything correctly. Part science, part art - it's alchemy certainly... and unfortunately the 'arts' side of it, is often tinged with political bias.
Economists have rarely forecasted anything correctly. Part science, part art - it's alchemy certainly... and unfortunately the 'arts' side of it, is often tinged with political bias.
They don't need no economists. They don't need no smart people. They got Steve Bannon, half the top staff at Goldman Sachs, military war-mongers and the other Top 1% Global Financial Elite Robber Baron/ Radical Religion Good Old Boys' Party operatives, and playbook, to try to destroy democracy and governments around the world.
They don't want no interference either. They think their tiny little 1% will take America, and other democratic governments down. They are dead wrong. The Silent Majority is Roaring OUR disapproval and taking action across America to stop their destructive agenda. The Sleeping Giant has Awakened and SHE is furious, as are the socially conscious men who love and honor her and democracy.
They don't want no interference either. They think their tiny little 1% will take America, and other democratic governments down. They are dead wrong. The Silent Majority is Roaring OUR disapproval and taking action across America to stop their destructive agenda. The Sleeping Giant has Awakened and SHE is furious, as are the socially conscious men who love and honor her and democracy.
77
This is bang on ... but it doesn't go the next step. Not only does Trump not need all the experts in many fields, he and his minions need to be free of the inconvenient reminders of reality that such people are prone to speak.
They need to be muzzled or shot. That is the next step in the fascist takeover.
They need to be muzzled or shot. That is the next step in the fascist takeover.
Money is the root of all evil. Trump is a billionaire and his cabinet is billionaires and his advisors are billionaires or billionaire wannabes. Looks like the Bible is going to get a new chapter after Revelations.
1
I had to stop myself from laughing out loud at this article's tagline "The move deprives the cabinet of the council's academic expertise and could contribute to insularity and bias." Is there a more insular group than academic economists? We have the academic economist run Fed to thank for decades of bubble blowing policies that punish responsible savers and have created the greatest disparity of wealth and income inequality in our country's history.
12
The Fed? Precisely what did it do wrong in the Obama years? Where did the GOP fantasy of monumental inflation go? Where did the 28%-45% unemployment non-facts go? Where did the Wall St. and banking chaos go?
The Fed ain't blind or deaf or mute, and it has never ever been
harmful to decent investment and savings strategies during those 8 years.
Blame the GOPers in Congers for lax banking regulation? Ok,
but not the Fed.
The Fed ain't blind or deaf or mute, and it has never ever been
harmful to decent investment and savings strategies during those 8 years.
Blame the GOPers in Congers for lax banking regulation? Ok,
but not the Fed.
Zero interest rates, QE (borrowing with one hand and lending with the other) and feeding banks free money is what engenders, nay, necessitates the loathsome banker behavior your criticizing. How does one save (responsibly) for retirement with ZIRP? Asset bubbles (which we have now in spades) are wholly the result of Fed policy. Greenspan's policies have prevailed under dem and GOP administrations. The fallacy that debt will be paid down once growth returns completely ignores political reality.
The plutocrats who endow universities to select their economics faculties are even more insular.
Downgrading the CEA is a good start for Trumpocracy. But why stop there? Republicans should eliminate the Congressional Budget Office, with its "fake facts" estimates of the economic and budgetary impact of various Trumpeted initiatives. Trumpworld should be free from input potentially at odds with Trumponomics.
15
Since economics is no more objective nor scientific than business or history or accounting or law or finance or banking it is not useful in making repeatable testable useful predictions. There are way too many variables and unknowns to use double blind testing controls. Economics is gender, color, "race", ethnicity, faith, national origin, history and politics plus arithmetic.
We could use some seers or fortune tellers or sorcery or voodoo or witchcraft to better effect. Past performance is no good prognosticator. Other than fellow economists who will miss the bean counters?
We could use some seers or fortune tellers or sorcery or voodoo or witchcraft to better effect. Past performance is no good prognosticator. Other than fellow economists who will miss the bean counters?
4
blackmamba IL: voodoo, seers, witchcraft, and fortune tellers seem right up your alley, snake eyes. You need a good education to appreciate a science like economics, its strengths and its weaknesses. Be sure you toss a coin when investing - it's on your level.
1
Let's see the so-called economic experts over the last two administrations, one Republican and the other Democratic, advised to increase the federal debt beyond exponential proportions. Under Obama, the USA dept increased by more than all previous presidents combined! Liberals see that as an accomplishment! I don't it takes an expert, maybe it does, to advise such a borrowing tactic. Normal household would go into bankruptcy under such a plan. I think its time the experts, many of who hail from the northeast and midwest Ivory Towers, insulated from the real world. When I hear the letter PhD after some one's name, I roll my eyes, and prepare myself to listen to someone bloviate for hours. Its time for normal people, like Stephen Bannon, to call the shots. Thank you.
8
Government debt is an issue best left to macro economist, it does not relate well to personal finance. Our government has become the bank to the world and that's a very good thing, we have never in our history failed to pay back out debts, as a result people and governments all over the world come and bring us their money, we are one of the safest places for money. This is a good thing, they give us money and we give them IOUs at real interest rates near zero, for us its practically free money. those IOUs are what's referred to as debt, and as long as economist are in charge we will maintain a healthy ratio and it's in our interest to take as much debt as we can without risking default but this dropping of economist from the advisory board has already cost the US billions if not trillions as our interest rates on our debt has risen as we are looking like a riskier investment.
1
@Southern Boy
Since governments don't die, their citizens never stop working and they can and do issue their own currency, comparisons to "normal households" are not pertinent or useful. This household analogy is among Saint Ronnie's worst contributions to American civilization. It may be folksy, but it ain't true....
So stop rolling your eyes and instead of worrying so much about government debt, which hasn't ruined your life or anyone else's since 1776, look at the trillions lost in output since 2007, for lack of adequate demand -- meaning lack of adequate stimulus -- and the human cost of it.
At times of low demand, cutting government spending will impoverish, not enrich, the country. If you don't believe me, look at Europe, compared to growth in the U.S.
Since governments don't die, their citizens never stop working and they can and do issue their own currency, comparisons to "normal households" are not pertinent or useful. This household analogy is among Saint Ronnie's worst contributions to American civilization. It may be folksy, but it ain't true....
So stop rolling your eyes and instead of worrying so much about government debt, which hasn't ruined your life or anyone else's since 1776, look at the trillions lost in output since 2007, for lack of adequate demand -- meaning lack of adequate stimulus -- and the human cost of it.
At times of low demand, cutting government spending will impoverish, not enrich, the country. If you don't believe me, look at Europe, compared to growth in the U.S.
1
Southern Boy -- the rising debt is not the fault of economists. It's the fault of politicians, and the people.
And the reality you do not like is that it is the Republican administrations that have created our mountain of debt, through tax cuts on the wealthy. You want to fix the debt? Raise taxes.
And the reality you do not like is that it is the Republican administrations that have created our mountain of debt, through tax cuts on the wealthy. You want to fix the debt? Raise taxes.
Another step down the road of ignorance, further endangering our future.
48
The author says, in part: ". . . it is an in-house economic consultancy for the White House. The staff produces economic analysis on nearly every issue the president faces." He ends his opinion piece by saying: "It is important to have someone in the cabinet who is more interested in protecting academic integrity than in protecting business interests or the president’s image."
Unfortunately, three factors are important in the Trump White House's decision to reduce the importance of the Council on Economic Advisors. One is that they, like the George W. Bush administration and quite unlike the Obama White House, want NO dissenting viewpoints. Second, just as in the Bush administration, decisions in the Trump administration are made and enacted by a small group of trusted advisors. The third, and perhaps the most important, is that the Trump administration is extremely pro-business and will enact policies that are highly supportive of big business.
This last point is important for two reasons. One is that the business lobby will send billions in campaign contributions. The second is that Trump's small group of advisors MIGHT line their own pockets with increases in stocks' prices. They don't need an economist to tell them to buy low-sell high.
Unfortunately, three factors are important in the Trump White House's decision to reduce the importance of the Council on Economic Advisors. One is that they, like the George W. Bush administration and quite unlike the Obama White House, want NO dissenting viewpoints. Second, just as in the Bush administration, decisions in the Trump administration are made and enacted by a small group of trusted advisors. The third, and perhaps the most important, is that the Trump administration is extremely pro-business and will enact policies that are highly supportive of big business.
This last point is important for two reasons. One is that the business lobby will send billions in campaign contributions. The second is that Trump's small group of advisors MIGHT line their own pockets with increases in stocks' prices. They don't need an economist to tell them to buy low-sell high.
11
The removal of the CEA from cabinet-level input to this current White House should surprise nobody. This Administration is the apotheosis of a decades-long GOP drift away from science, research and analysis. Objective knowledge is the enemy of blind ideology.
Insisting on the reign of their own stupidity, ideologues in power spare no effort to keep the rest of us stupid, censoring research findings they find inconvenient and short-circuiting new research that could challenge their preconceived assumptions.
America has always nurtured its know-nothing-and-proud-of-it streak. Now, its avatars hold the reins of power at a time when willful ignorance threatens human survival. Someday, history may judge us unkindly for this, if we still have a history to do the judging.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Insisting on the reign of their own stupidity, ideologues in power spare no effort to keep the rest of us stupid, censoring research findings they find inconvenient and short-circuiting new research that could challenge their preconceived assumptions.
America has always nurtured its know-nothing-and-proud-of-it streak. Now, its avatars hold the reins of power at a time when willful ignorance threatens human survival. Someday, history may judge us unkindly for this, if we still have a history to do the judging.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
49
After many years of scientific engagement and unrelated political observation, I'm disappointed in having to offer the following conclusion:
"Economist" suggests someone who has studied and acquired some expertise in a matter that can be highly technical. Trump sees no need for such trivia. He relies on gut and Fox, both afloat in a fog of Bannonian deconstruction that itself is unencumbered by bothersome detail.
In this Trumpian world, facts, data, and Truth are inconveniences to be ignored, denied, maligned, or manufactured to suit current needs. And one can always just lie. So, what's the need of economists? This is 1984.
"Economist" suggests someone who has studied and acquired some expertise in a matter that can be highly technical. Trump sees no need for such trivia. He relies on gut and Fox, both afloat in a fog of Bannonian deconstruction that itself is unencumbered by bothersome detail.
In this Trumpian world, facts, data, and Truth are inconveniences to be ignored, denied, maligned, or manufactured to suit current needs. And one can always just lie. So, what's the need of economists? This is 1984.
56
Bannon and Trump don't need experts around, they have ideology.
36
Actually, Paula, aside from ideology, they have each other!
Economic modeling and the use of these models is beyond the explanation that can be offered in one article, but this one did a seriously good job of explaining how listening to economists can help an administration. For it to work the administration must be interested in learning beyond its own bias. That is clearly not the case here. We have a pretend leader who's mind is small and closed. Sad.
23
Economic policy decisions must be crafted based on counsel from a variety of sources with different areas of expertise and different viewpoints. No one group or individual has all the answers. At the very least, business analysts, economists, technologists, environmentalists, historians, diplomats, social scientists, lawyers, and yes, consumer and worker advocates should all have a place at the table. Omitting any one of those viewpoints leads to unbalanced policies. Scapegoating one source of input — say, academic economists — as the root of all previous mistakes is both wrongheaded and shortsighted.
8
Brilliant article about the difference between understanding economic policy making and business. I just corresponded with my state representative over a proposed tax cut for small businesses, asking for the impact on state and city budgets and his response-"Why would that impact the city?" Only after encouraging him to explain costs and benefits for his legislative ideas did he provide more information on revenue impacts. Being a business person requires only an understanding of budgeting and forecasting for specific outcomes, which is much different than understanding multiple variables in a complex landscaped like the U.S. economy, which is driven by global factors. Unfortunately, most of the electorate have never taken an economics course, as our educational system does not require this rigor.
18
An economist - even a far right wing economist - would be likely to point out inconvenient facts. For example, a plan that includes cutting taxes "massively" while directing the "biggest military buildup you've ever seen" and building a wall on the border with Mexico (and hiring 15,000 people to watch it) while hugely improving infrastructure would lead most breathing economists to suggest the possibility that this would produce enormous deficits. Deficits run counter to conservative thinking. Hence we cannot have an economist around just being so annoying. Deficits in government are a cousin to bankruptcies in business, so why would we be surprised?
47
Economics is a social science, and like all social sciences its accuracy as a predictive tool is always going to be limited. The author acknowledges the discipline's weaknesses in that regard, but rightly points out that it is highly useful as a way to broaden recognition of economic factors that influence economic realities and should be taken into consideration when making decisions.
But this article should not be taken out of the broader context that Trump and his chaotic discipleship are doing across the board. Because it's not just the soft social sciences they are suppressing, it is the harder natural sciences as well. The opening salvo was Pruitt immediately announcing a reexamination of how "science is done" in the EPA. And you can bet that in every field empirical, evidenced-based studies will be marginalized and gagged at any point that the conclusions of scientists come into conflict with the Trumpatorship's radical agenda.
This is a regime, after all, that clearly prioritizes its own fantasy narrative, which is supported by adrenalinized anger and fanatic civic religious fervor. The regime has no patience with science and evidence that complicate its simplistic alt-fact supported agenda, and we should continue to expect this alt-fact driven alt-right President to continue to violently promote an alt-right reality.
But this article should not be taken out of the broader context that Trump and his chaotic discipleship are doing across the board. Because it's not just the soft social sciences they are suppressing, it is the harder natural sciences as well. The opening salvo was Pruitt immediately announcing a reexamination of how "science is done" in the EPA. And you can bet that in every field empirical, evidenced-based studies will be marginalized and gagged at any point that the conclusions of scientists come into conflict with the Trumpatorship's radical agenda.
This is a regime, after all, that clearly prioritizes its own fantasy narrative, which is supported by adrenalinized anger and fanatic civic religious fervor. The regime has no patience with science and evidence that complicate its simplistic alt-fact supported agenda, and we should continue to expect this alt-fact driven alt-right President to continue to violently promote an alt-right reality.
27
It is apparent that Trump and his cadre do not want to be associated with anything that would act as a conscience and question their misdeeds and ineptness. This goes hand in hand with attempting to silence the Press.
22
Academic economists serve no useful purpose. Why the outrage at omitting individuals who can provide no indicative guidance on anything real?
At best they are contractors paid to flog anyone's point of view. We defy anyone to identify a practical benefit that has emerged from academic economics.
It is a nice fantasy game where anyone can dredge up a universe of numbers to prove anything.
At best they are contractors paid to flog anyone's point of view. We defy anyone to identify a practical benefit that has emerged from academic economics.
It is a nice fantasy game where anyone can dredge up a universe of numbers to prove anything.
7
Wrong.
At best, economists can provide models, analysis and logic, that address systemic impacts.
At best, economists can provide models, analysis and logic, that address systemic impacts.
6
Rita - The problem is that the economists models, analyses and logic are often wrong or very limited. They routinely ignore real world consequences that don't fit neatly into their models, analyses and logic. Asking an economist what the real world impact of a policy will be a year from now is no different than asking a weatherman if it will be raining in Brooklyn at 3pm on March 1, 2018.
6
Models don't "routinely ignore real world consequences that don't fit neatly into [them]." No models pretend to reflect real life 1:1. No model could. Models simplify by necessity but don't do so willy-nilly. There are conscious and careful choices involved, and those choices are stated in the form of assumptions made and variables not taken into account or held constant. Both models and assumptions can be and usually are challenged by other economists and informed stakeholders from fields other than economics. Such debates are part of the value models offer. Different perspectives and priorities are brought in to help refine models or lead to newer models that promise to do a better job of explaining interrelationships & outcomes of a certain set of choices and actions (while allowing for other variables and unknowns). There are no simple, unqualified answers to complex problems. Yes, an economist will be able to give you an answer on the potential real-life impact of a policy, but he or she will have to qualify that answer. To use your analogy (imperfect, as comparing a natural science to a social science), your weather(wo)man may not be able to tell you the weather you will have on some future date, but you may learn about the factors influencing the weather patterns in your area in a given season and the set of conditions under which those factors will or will not give you weather in line with stats. Economics, involving people, may well be more complex even than weather.
The anti-intellectual administration.
Mad at economists, mad at intelligence experts.
“The president asked for an intelligence assessment. This is not the intelligence assessment the president asked for,” a senior Trump administration official said.
He is modeling George W Bush on fixing the intelligence to create the policy.
Unable to vet staffers: Trump was forced to fire 6 more people from his White House staff in mid-February after they failed FBI background checks.
Some were escorted by Security out of the building for not successfully passing the positions for “security clearances and high-risk public trust positions.”
This is the same white house that tells us it can vet people flying into the country, or immigrants----but their own staff couldn't pass FBI vetting.
Some had been there since day one.
Mad at economists, mad at intelligence experts.
“The president asked for an intelligence assessment. This is not the intelligence assessment the president asked for,” a senior Trump administration official said.
He is modeling George W Bush on fixing the intelligence to create the policy.
Unable to vet staffers: Trump was forced to fire 6 more people from his White House staff in mid-February after they failed FBI background checks.
Some were escorted by Security out of the building for not successfully passing the positions for “security clearances and high-risk public trust positions.”
This is the same white house that tells us it can vet people flying into the country, or immigrants----but their own staff couldn't pass FBI vetting.
Some had been there since day one.
22
Trump and his GOP henchmen are the sort of crooks who don't like to see their crimes featured on the front pages, lest the public catch on to their grand larceny.
They're the sort of folks who would have you believe guns don't kill people.
Mike Pence once penned an article saying cigarettes don't kill.
They have proposed replacing people's healthcare with hot air.
They think tax cuts increase tax revenues.
They support abstinence contraception...and abstinence from critical thinking.
Donald Trump hasn't paid federal income taxes in decades.
His business 'expertise' largely resides in casino gambling, real estate gambling, fake-reality TV, consumer fraud, brand-merchandising, greedy golfers, trust funds, bankruptcy filings, tax evasion, debt evasion and psychopathic lying.
There simply is no room for economic facts, fundamentals and reality in the Trump Reign of Error.
They would contradict the radical rosy picture Trump paints of the imminent economic and social collapse the Trump Administration is feverishly and fascistly engineering.
The next President will inherit a giant Trump economic mess.
They're the sort of folks who would have you believe guns don't kill people.
Mike Pence once penned an article saying cigarettes don't kill.
They have proposed replacing people's healthcare with hot air.
They think tax cuts increase tax revenues.
They support abstinence contraception...and abstinence from critical thinking.
Donald Trump hasn't paid federal income taxes in decades.
His business 'expertise' largely resides in casino gambling, real estate gambling, fake-reality TV, consumer fraud, brand-merchandising, greedy golfers, trust funds, bankruptcy filings, tax evasion, debt evasion and psychopathic lying.
There simply is no room for economic facts, fundamentals and reality in the Trump Reign of Error.
They would contradict the radical rosy picture Trump paints of the imminent economic and social collapse the Trump Administration is feverishly and fascistly engineering.
The next President will inherit a giant Trump economic mess.
116
Kick out the press that thinks best.
Call for "Clean coal..."
If there's no economist in the administration, there's no one to laugh
at the naked orange oaf.
This all happened within 24 hours. Intentionally "in-your-face" from Alex Jones' angry infant's bully-pulpit fan?
Rule, Bannonia, Bannonia rules DC...
Call for "Clean coal..."
If there's no economist in the administration, there's no one to laugh
at the naked orange oaf.
This all happened within 24 hours. Intentionally "in-your-face" from Alex Jones' angry infant's bully-pulpit fan?
Rule, Bannonia, Bannonia rules DC...
Trump does not care about the economic effects of any of his decisions.
He only cares how a given decision will increase or maintain his support from his base.
An economist who points out to Trump the adverse economic effects of one of Trump's policies is simply an unwanted annoyance.
He only cares how a given decision will increase or maintain his support from his base.
An economist who points out to Trump the adverse economic effects of one of Trump's policies is simply an unwanted annoyance.
20
Bannon lets the proverbial cat out earlier this week when he admitted to the CPAC crowd (to cheers I might add) that their intent was to dismantle government. We've heard for years about the "Free Market" but in order for a market to function 2 things must be true: 1) Any participant's product has the ability to compete fairly with all others products (we know this doesn't happen because advertising hasn't been fair since the 80s and Reagan got the "Fairness in Advertising" Act repealed, whose repeal he signed with glee), 2) all participants agree to abide by the same rules (which we also know isn't the case, especially with extremely wealthy corporations which literally have their own lobbying firms). From the start, our system does not support a market as classically defined, so trying to set things up to utilize one only makes things worse - for the majority. In chaos, the strongest define the rules and are the only ones who get to survive; the rest are expected just to die. In wanting to dismantle government, this is the scenario Trump, Bannon, and the Republicans clearly desire.
2
Trump & Bannon do not want a prestigious economist telling the Cabinet what the economic impact will be of: repealing Obamacare, huge tax cuts for the wealthy, a 30% import fee, of canceling international economic agreements, etc.
They can't even allow a lap-dog conservative economist into that room as he/she may contradict their fake news
They can't even allow a lap-dog conservative economist into that room as he/she may contradict their fake news
22
Economic expertise. It's not exactly an oxymoron, but it certainly doesn't bring to mind sages who get it right. When it comes to the future, economists are best guessers. They are free to describe the economy as best they can.
Trump will try to do something about it, to change it. Big difference. (In fact, it's a difference between Trump and a lot of people, especially his critics.)
When it comes to change, economists should stick to describing it. In other words, looking backwards and trying to apply theory to what happened.
Trump will try to do something about it, to change it. Big difference. (In fact, it's a difference between Trump and a lot of people, especially his critics.)
When it comes to change, economists should stick to describing it. In other words, looking backwards and trying to apply theory to what happened.
6
Why would you apply theory to past events.At best I suspect that Trump Wants to remove safe guards to our financial system. Obama needed funds for rebuilding But could never get it out of congress.He wants to borrow a trillion dollars and not pay for it.Reducing taxas never trickles down. they will buy their own shares back.Trump had a few hard weeks so like Hitler he had a great big Raley Than Proceeded to attack the first amendment. He has done some bad deeds or at best has some very stupid people operating as advisors
"Trump will try to do something about it, to change it. Big difference."
And there, in a nutshell, is why Trumpistas will blithely drag this country down into a cesspit of ignorance, misery and misanthropy.
God save us all, because we're in serious trouble now.
And there, in a nutshell, is why Trumpistas will blithely drag this country down into a cesspit of ignorance, misery and misanthropy.
God save us all, because we're in serious trouble now.
Economists use that liberal math. They rely on real, actual facts and figures. Probably some science too.
This is a threat to the Trump administration's reliance on alternative facts and cherry picked numbers to support unrealistic projections.
This is very bad, but not surprising
This is a threat to the Trump administration's reliance on alternative facts and cherry picked numbers to support unrealistic projections.
This is very bad, but not surprising
21
The American nation benefits immensely from international trade! Yes, we must insist on reciprocity, but it will hurt consumers and American businesses if we are forced by vote pandering into a protectionist stance. Who all among American politicians are going to speak up for international trade (within reasonable limits)?
7
Trumps tax plan and economic forecasts make no sense. They will lead to tremendous budget deficits and nowhere near the 3 percent growth he forecasts. It is no wonder he wants to suppress expert opinion that contradicts his nonsensical proposals.
Welcome to the land of fake news and fake economic projections.
Welcome to the land of fake news and fake economic projections.
18
Letting economists determine economic policy is like letting generals determine military policy. Yes, you might want to hear what they have to say, but their opinions are not infallible. Did any academic economist warn against too much subprime lending? The value of academic economists' opinions is demonstrated by the widespread joke that "Economists have predicted 9 of last 5 recessions."
When the esteemed economists at the Federal Reserve can't agree on whether the Fed should be raising interest rates or not, I'm not sure how much credence politicians should put in their opinions.
When the esteemed economists at the Federal Reserve can't agree on whether the Fed should be raising interest rates or not, I'm not sure how much credence politicians should put in their opinions.
6
"Economists have predicted 9 of last 5 recessions."
They incorrectly predicted four recessions that did not occur and they hit five that did. If I've done my math right (may not have, I'm not a statistician or an economist) if they're batting .556. These odds look pretty good, especially since they didn't miss any recessions. Nobody's opinions are infallible, so I say keep them on board.
They incorrectly predicted four recessions that did not occur and they hit five that did. If I've done my math right (may not have, I'm not a statistician or an economist) if they're batting .556. These odds look pretty good, especially since they didn't miss any recessions. Nobody's opinions are infallible, so I say keep them on board.
2
I don't think anyone is suggesting that economists should be the sole source of input when crafting economic policies. It's a question of balance. We need input from both economists and business analysts, among others. And, hey, how about a seat at the table for worker and consumer advocates?
6
Professor Mullainathan writes the demotion "will rob the policy-making process of a particular kind of expertise "
Economics can provides expertise - practiced as a craft on a low level, such as estimating the increase in tax revenue after a change in tax legislation. But that's not cabinet rank.
And its political trail has been disastrous.
Wrong economic theory gave us Trump, by claiming that globalization had only a negligible effect on the salaries on US workers working in trades competing with low wage countries. Coupled with disdain for who lost their jobs. As Paul Krugman wrote after a 1997 pro globalization article
" I should have expected that this comment letters along the lines of, "Well, if you lose your comfortable position as an American professor you can always find another job--as long as you are 12 years old and willing to work for 40 cents an hour." Such moral outrage is common among the opponents of globalization "
Moral outrage ???? These were workers who had lost jobs !
In short, for 2 decades, economists failed to take proper account of the distributive effects of globalization, a catastrophic error that world wide resulted in the rise of anti-globalization parties.
Given that record, does it really deserve to be at the table ?
And as a practical matter, Winston Churchill observed:
" "If you put two economists in a room, you get two opinions, unless one of them is Lord Keynes, in which case you get three opinions."
Economics can provides expertise - practiced as a craft on a low level, such as estimating the increase in tax revenue after a change in tax legislation. But that's not cabinet rank.
And its political trail has been disastrous.
Wrong economic theory gave us Trump, by claiming that globalization had only a negligible effect on the salaries on US workers working in trades competing with low wage countries. Coupled with disdain for who lost their jobs. As Paul Krugman wrote after a 1997 pro globalization article
" I should have expected that this comment letters along the lines of, "Well, if you lose your comfortable position as an American professor you can always find another job--as long as you are 12 years old and willing to work for 40 cents an hour." Such moral outrage is common among the opponents of globalization "
Moral outrage ???? These were workers who had lost jobs !
In short, for 2 decades, economists failed to take proper account of the distributive effects of globalization, a catastrophic error that world wide resulted in the rise of anti-globalization parties.
Given that record, does it really deserve to be at the table ?
And as a practical matter, Winston Churchill observed:
" "If you put two economists in a room, you get two opinions, unless one of them is Lord Keynes, in which case you get three opinions."
8
The President and all of his advisors know nothing about economics or how to interpret CBO statistics and outlooks for how tax cuts, etc will affect the economy or the deficit.
Now there will be no one in the close circle or daily meetings that has that expertise.
Why are we not surprised... the whole executive branch is flying blind.
Now there will be no one in the close circle or daily meetings that has that expertise.
Why are we not surprised... the whole executive branch is flying blind.
9
I am educated in both the physical sciences and economics, and most of my understanding of the 'big picture' in economics stems from science. Most economists neglect the facts that the planet is finite, that economic growth is based on increasing amounts of inexpensive energy, and that all economic activity is energy and that all energy use creates a waste product whether physical or in the form of heat. As we have a closed system (planet Earth), economic growth cannot be perpetual and exponential. Labor, policy and capital are not the only inputs to an economy; raw material and energy are not free and must be analyzed in terms of the closed system of the planet Yes there are limits, and we have approached them. This is why, if you look over the past 50 years, the percent increase in GDP has a steady downward trend.
If economists advise the President on anything, it should be to ask him to reduce the public's expectations for growth, explaining the reasons why.
If economists advise the President on anything, it should be to ask him to reduce the public's expectations for growth, explaining the reasons why.
17
The 'New Republican' revolution is progressing nicely. The minorities, the defenseless, stir up the angry mob, attack the dissenters and then marginalize the thinkers and academics. The people who now control the USA with their brutal ideology have no grasp of mathematics that was derived by Greeks 600 BC; if you understand the mathematics of the Greeks then I fear they hate you and they hate intellectuals. When I studied Animal Farm when I was in school 1979 we used the Iranian revolution to help us understand Orwell's brilliant work. How this New Republican revolution will progress even the least mathematically literate Economist should be able to predict: beware the dogs.
PS: In 2008 a group of 20 Economists saved Australia from a desperate recession. They are very very smart people and it seems madness to marginalize these professional.
PS: In 2008 a group of 20 Economists saved Australia from a desperate recession. They are very very smart people and it seems madness to marginalize these professional.
6
As soon as economists start including the costs to the economy of excess regulations, they will get a seat at the table. [Eliminating 25% of the regulations would free $0.5T in annual economic power.] As soon as they quit making absurd statements that raising the minimum wage doesn't result in job losses, they will get a seat at the table. As soon as they start reporting on the cost to the economy of illegal aliens and H-1B visa holders on the wages of Americans, they'll get a seat at the table.
Having a elite academic who has a detailed knowledge of economic models but no exposure to the real world does not add value to policy making.
It is similar to scientists coming to the conclusion that if the industrialized world gives $100 billion to the autocratic rulers of the third world, the donation will contribute to a reduction in worldwide temperatures. the scientists must have had help from the economists in coming up with that policy.
Having a elite academic who has a detailed knowledge of economic models but no exposure to the real world does not add value to policy making.
It is similar to scientists coming to the conclusion that if the industrialized world gives $100 billion to the autocratic rulers of the third world, the donation will contribute to a reduction in worldwide temperatures. the scientists must have had help from the economists in coming up with that policy.
7
Some are even convinced that illegal immigration has no effects on employment. They have become cogs in an ideological battle. Sometimes people just have to rely on their own two eyes and common sense. Economists can, meanwhile, rely on their view from 10K feet.
4
Regulations, regulations - a whipping boy that tried to save resources, clean rivers, prevent floods, detoxify fruits and veggies, prevent workplace deaths, and do whatever the robber-barons feared - make American workers, the public, stockholders, savers, all of us less certain of tomorrow. And now that the world is following us from the darkness into the kind of safer community that make highly-regulated societies like Germany and Scandinavian wealthy
and satisfied, you wish we were more like 1990's China and India and Russia? Give me a break. And data w/o a source is like sashimi without flash freezing, dangerous to swallow.
and satisfied, you wish we were more like 1990's China and India and Russia? Give me a break. And data w/o a source is like sashimi without flash freezing, dangerous to swallow.
[Eliminating 25% of the regulations would free $0.5T in annual economic power.] that's an awful big statement, do you have any citations for it? (If you do, I assume they come from economists).
But Donald Trump already told us that he is very smart. he said "I know more than the generals" when discussing intelligence and "Islamic Terrorism". He already knows more about the Economy than the so-called "Economists". So we elected a delusional egotist as President. Now we will find out how that will work out for the Americans who voted for him. But what about all the rest of us who fear the consequences of Trump's ascendance to this level of power over all of our lives.
If he is such a successful businessman, as he tells us he is, why is he afraid to release his tax returns? Is it possible that he actually has not been as successful as he tells us he is?
If he is such a successful businessman, as he tells us he is, why is he afraid to release his tax returns? Is it possible that he actually has not been as successful as he tells us he is?
20
I read a week ago about Trump calling General Flynn in the middle of the night to ask which was better, a weak or strong dollar. It seemed so odd that our 170 I.Q., Wharton educated, business super-genius did not know Economics 101. And it seemed doubly odd that he was confused because he has been blasting China for currency valuation issues. So odd to be mixed up on this, considering that he has "a beautiful brain." One of the best, really.
9
it may be true that economists can be great in theory and useless in practice, as I experienced from being married to one - he advised heads of state in theory but was clueless about how to run a household checkbook and made more bad real-life decisions than one would think possible for an almost-PhD.
But the deconstruction of government as we knew it is sort of terrifying... Can the Times please keep a weekly running watchlist of the "deconstruction" of government so that we can see it whole instead of piecemeal? That is, a standing list by category of things like, all the government information webpages that have disappeared, all the advisers/positions/functions who have been shut down, all the laws and practices overturned by executive fiat, news organizations banned, etc. (Annotated: giving the pro and con rationales in a quick column format.) The country will need to have a checklist at the ready when this administration is over and it is time to rebuild the American civilization more effectively.
But the deconstruction of government as we knew it is sort of terrifying... Can the Times please keep a weekly running watchlist of the "deconstruction" of government so that we can see it whole instead of piecemeal? That is, a standing list by category of things like, all the government information webpages that have disappeared, all the advisers/positions/functions who have been shut down, all the laws and practices overturned by executive fiat, news organizations banned, etc. (Annotated: giving the pro and con rationales in a quick column format.) The country will need to have a checklist at the ready when this administration is over and it is time to rebuild the American civilization more effectively.
17
The government, which at every level has become self-serving, NEEDS to be deconstructed. Although it took eight decades or so to get us to this point, we don't have nearly a century to undo what FDR, JFK and LBJ hath wrought.
1
Economists have been demoted for one reason and one reason only; to make the rich richer and those most in need suffer more. There is no room in Trump's America for the most vulnerable among us and this is by plan, has been his plan all along. Shame on him.
8
Sadly, economists have demoted themselves. Their singular focus on numerical measures of well being like GDP has led thoughtful people to marginalize their advice. They have little to say about the victims of their creative destruction policies. If one man gains wealth at the expense of the poor, they cheer our so-called economic growth. If millions of middle class americans are impoverished but some people in China are brought out of poverty, they cheer globalization.
We're not numbers on a chart. We are people.
We're not numbers on a chart. We are people.
10
The Economists give the numbers but business leaders could think of people if they wanted to as the consequences of their decisions are well known. Perhaps the Stock Market index should show people falling off a cliff at the numbers rise and maybe everyone would stop cheering.
Acadmic Economists lost their seat at the table because you advocated free trade with no regard to effects on blue color workers in rust belt states. Yes in theory, they should have migrated to growth sectors but in reality, white men decided they didn't want to become home healthcare aides and voted accordingly. It's ironic compasion less economic theory got you thrown out from the Administration lacking in compassion.
4
And that's the fault of the economists? I guess the Okies were wrong to flee the dust bowl, right? They should have demanded government handouts. The entitlement mentality that pervades every corner of American society these days lies in sharp contrast to the selfless acts of the Greatest Generation which was their parents and grandparents. For shame.
6
White working class rust belters need to take some personal responsibility and adapt to a changing economy. You're NOT special. There is no implicit agreement that you should have a high paying low/unskilled job. The fact is the market really doesn't value these inefficient jobs anymore. The country has near record levels of skilled job openings right now but they require skills or some proficiency at basic math and science. Should have paid more attention in school. However, there is a whole network of community colleges across the country that you can take advantage of to learn some skills that are valued in today's economy.
Don't forge the suicides during the Depression
Obama in 2009 was weak in understanding economic issues and picked unwisely for his economic team: like Tim Geithner of the NY Fed, nothing but a Wall Streeter through and through. Eric Holder, AG, was actually from Wall Street, thus we never saw banking heads go to jail. But Obama was above all honest, but swimming against the Mitch McConnell tide ("We will make him fail").
Trump is a different animal. His friends and donors are rich businessmen, and its obvious what he will do: tax reform (regressive tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations), and regulatory reform (enforcement will disappear). Taxes on the wealthy to pay for ACA are a main reason Republicans hated the law. Those taxes will be gone.
The result of 1)all of Trump's huge spending and 2)huge tax cuts? Massive increase in the deficit. All to further enrich his class.
Welcome to Trumponomics, where the rich get richer and the middle class and working class (including those who foolishly voted for Trump) are forgotten.
Trump is a different animal. His friends and donors are rich businessmen, and its obvious what he will do: tax reform (regressive tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations), and regulatory reform (enforcement will disappear). Taxes on the wealthy to pay for ACA are a main reason Republicans hated the law. Those taxes will be gone.
The result of 1)all of Trump's huge spending and 2)huge tax cuts? Massive increase in the deficit. All to further enrich his class.
Welcome to Trumponomics, where the rich get richer and the middle class and working class (including those who foolishly voted for Trump) are forgotten.
55
The French Revolution had the guillotine for the fat cats of that generation. Trump has awakened the previously silent minority of the dispossessed and deplorables who will hang from lamp posts all of the wall street insider traders and foreclosure experts and Mar-a-Lago members, and all the others who have stolen extraordinary wealth from the labors of the majority.
3
We still have the rule of law for individual and group conduct and neither government nor corporations should ever surrender out of fear of mob rule.
1
I think to say the middle and poor are forgottenby 45 is an understatement. They are having their pockets picked every day, and their cost of everything will go thru the roof. They can have all the belllow minimum wage jobs the undocumented immigrants were doing, since they won't have any other income sources. They thought they had it bad. They had no idea. But they will have only Brietbart and Fox News to hear their woes. Or should I say, to ignore them.
As the old saying goes, "Economists have accurately predicted nine of the last five recessions."
Economics is the least scientific of the social sciences.
Economics is the least scientific of the social sciences.
8
John, living by "old sayings" is not what current economic modelers do.
It's what anti-vaccination fools do. It's what unrepentant Confederate sympathizers might be doing today. It's like a mad and ignorant bully yelling
"I can fix it.", "I know more than the generals", "Send her to prison", and
"Make America Great Again."
Never ever trust a slogan, an ad, an "old saying".
It's what anti-vaccination fools do. It's what unrepentant Confederate sympathizers might be doing today. It's like a mad and ignorant bully yelling
"I can fix it.", "I know more than the generals", "Send her to prison", and
"Make America Great Again."
Never ever trust a slogan, an ad, an "old saying".
And the Trump administration is the least scientific of the political world.
This decision is no worse than having Larry Summers in the seat with all the 1% in room. If you remember it was the same John Podesta who was President Obama's transition team head and recruited these 1% globalists. The same Podesta who was chosen by HRC to run her campaign and did not how to handle passwords cost us the election. The good professor of economics should be aware.of historical background. Unfortunately combination of scientific and engineering advances have made a whole host of folks under qualified. The economist as usual did not see this coming. As in any statististical data set, the modern world needs folks with higher education who are limited in number and, therefore, the immigration and trade policies of the last 30 years.
Not only U.S. Population got hosed down by monetary trickle down over the years but also by policy trickle down, which in hindsight was more devious. Unfortunately, the economists along with a host of other 1%s made this possible. Like it or hate it the voters decided to take their chance.
I really ask the moderates and liberals to make way for a more fundamental change rather than shrill vocalization to fight this new TRUMPETEER. It will be 8 year lost instead of just 4!
Not only U.S. Population got hosed down by monetary trickle down over the years but also by policy trickle down, which in hindsight was more devious. Unfortunately, the economists along with a host of other 1%s made this possible. Like it or hate it the voters decided to take their chance.
I really ask the moderates and liberals to make way for a more fundamental change rather than shrill vocalization to fight this new TRUMPETEER. It will be 8 year lost instead of just 4!
8
And now the same economists says that the infinite supply of labor through outsourcings and various sorts of immigration (legal, illegal, permits, refugees) and the resulting supply-demand ratio in labor has nothing to do with wages being largely stagnant for three decades while the Dow soared 25 times from 750 to 20,000+.
8
Diversity of thought is consistently valued by enlightened leaders. The intolerance to divergent viewpoints by President Trump's administration when coupled with blaming others for problems (e.g. press, immigrants) creates a toxic brew which will only serve to poison our democracy.
We need both a vigilant press and active citizenry to combat this war on facts and reasoned thought. Now is not the time for either to be silent nor partisan.
We need both a vigilant press and active citizenry to combat this war on facts and reasoned thought. Now is not the time for either to be silent nor partisan.
13
The Trump administration not taking advise from economists is alarming but not surprising. Many Trump voters voted for Trump because he is a businessman, with the thinking that a businessman can do a better job of running the country. You cannot run a country like a business - there are too many variables and too many constituents with different needs. The advice of academic economists is vitally important for maintaining a stable economy.
There is this misconception that the Republicans are better for the economy than Democrats. They conflate being friendly to business as being good for the economy. But the data shows the opposite. By almost any measure the economy does better under Democratic administrations than Republican.
There is this misconception that the Republicans are better for the economy than Democrats. They conflate being friendly to business as being good for the economy. But the data shows the opposite. By almost any measure the economy does better under Democratic administrations than Republican.
9
We don't know for sure, but my opinion is that Trump voters chose him because they wanted someone to disrupt the current system/establishment that they felt wasn't working well enough (or poorly) for them. They wanted to show a middle finger to an establishment that they felt was indffierent to them. I think this is how they can justify all his craziness. He's nuts but now the people who took them for granted (from both parties) are getting their revenge. It's a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face, but it's the last gasp of a group that is railing against the progress of complex systems.
How can you not trust the wisdom of a businessman who has been to bankruptcy court six (or is it seven) times?
It's going to be four long, painful years, but when Trump is done, everyone who voted for him will looking for a place to hide - as they should be now.
There are problems with a pure meritocracy, with surrounding yourself with nothing but academics, but a Trumpian idiocracy is not a credible alternative.
It's going to be four long, painful years, but when Trump is done, everyone who voted for him will looking for a place to hide - as they should be now.
There are problems with a pure meritocracy, with surrounding yourself with nothing but academics, but a Trumpian idiocracy is not a credible alternative.
126
I sincerely believe that we won't be going through this nightmare for four years.
Either DJT will be impeached, or his ego won't be able to take the attacks on him or his policies and he'll quit, talking his marbles to Mar-a-Lago to spend time with his beloved Melania and his even more beloved Trump International.
Either DJT will be impeached, or his ego won't be able to take the attacks on him or his policies and he'll quit, talking his marbles to Mar-a-Lago to spend time with his beloved Melania and his even more beloved Trump International.
His 7th bankruptcy will be the American healthcare system when it collapses as the GOP repeals the ACA with nothing to replace it.
His 8th will be every American who is not a million/billionaire.
Trump dreams about the real estate he and Russia will then buy for pennies on the dollar.
His 8th will be every American who is not a million/billionaire.
Trump dreams about the real estate he and Russia will then buy for pennies on the dollar.
eight years we hope.
"But don’t confuse business acumen with economic analytics. You surely wouldn’t conflate the two in one direction: Would you ask an academic economist without business experience to run a company?"
Trump's ego won't allow him to admit he needs expertise of any kind, because he can manage things himself, thank you very much. Right now, he seems to be purging any person who disagrees with him.
Being surrounded by "yes" men and women is no way to run a government. Trump got by in business by instilling his same values (or lack thereof) in his kids who essentially run the business now. Any cursory examination of his business success or failure rate would reveal strengths, but also a ton of weaknesses including the use of lawsuits as business strategy. He's lost money fighting for lost causes, and probably gives his lawyers ulcers.
But as the administration moves on to taxes and spending for the entire country--something the president knows nothing about--his need for academic advice will grow. A few wrong moves and his wonderful stock market will crash, and the economics will sink. Will Donald then tell his admirers that it's all the Democrats' fault? Or even worse, the economy is booming?
This administration has already politicized immigration and healthcare. Why not the economy? When you can't see the forest for the trees, everything becomes a tree.
Trump's ego won't allow him to admit he needs expertise of any kind, because he can manage things himself, thank you very much. Right now, he seems to be purging any person who disagrees with him.
Being surrounded by "yes" men and women is no way to run a government. Trump got by in business by instilling his same values (or lack thereof) in his kids who essentially run the business now. Any cursory examination of his business success or failure rate would reveal strengths, but also a ton of weaknesses including the use of lawsuits as business strategy. He's lost money fighting for lost causes, and probably gives his lawyers ulcers.
But as the administration moves on to taxes and spending for the entire country--something the president knows nothing about--his need for academic advice will grow. A few wrong moves and his wonderful stock market will crash, and the economics will sink. Will Donald then tell his admirers that it's all the Democrats' fault? Or even worse, the economy is booming?
This administration has already politicized immigration and healthcare. Why not the economy? When you can't see the forest for the trees, everything becomes a tree.
39
In the case of his own deconstruction, would trump not seek medical expertise?
And with Bannon standing by to whisper the words of greatness and remind him of the need to pay his "enemies" back for their mere existence there will be no way out for any of us.
Bannon in, generals out. Bannon in, economists out. When hate replaces reflection Trump is what you get.
Bannon in, generals out. Bannon in, economists out. When hate replaces reflection Trump is what you get.
It's called " deconstruction". Academics need to be removed as part of the plan to cause chaos and turmoil in government. And who will be blamed when chaos ensues? The government of course.
47
The publication of the tax returns of the Donald will bring impeachment and everyone knows it. Pass a bill in congress to make it mandatory for every candidate for every office to show their tax returns.
159
Congressional investigative committees have the power to subpoena the tax returns from the IRS. No move to expose the President to impeachment, if he has acted against the nation's interests (and here the sin is not policy but clear conflict of personal interest leaning towards treason) will gain traction so long as Congressional Republicans refuse to investigate. The Vice President was strategically implicated in knowledge of General Flynn's misdemeanour by the President, who no doubt fears rivals in every shadow - who hasn't speculated that Flynn was speaking with the Russians on direct orders from the President Elect or President Elect Bannon? Those tax returns are starting to resemble the Nixon tapes, and Flynn could be squeezed hard to sing by his role in covering-up an illegal communication to Russia. It is not unreasonable to suspect Russian interests have great leverage over the White House so long as Congress fails to investigate either to clear the record, or expose an ugly truth. For the time being, the GOP is standing behind the President and no matter how riled liberals, academics, Democrats and other protesting factions may be, it will take a great fissure opening in the Republican ranks before any investigation is pursued with diligence. The swamp is full to the brim with no drain in sight. As 45 himself might say, SAD.
2
How can anything sensible be passed now?
Let's start by blocking, berating, detailing, and resisting every stupid move.
Let's start by blocking, berating, detailing, and resisting every stupid move.
The Trump administration is shutting out voices they don't want to hear. It is immature and foolish, and in the long run likely to be detrimental. When intelligence agencies and advisors sanitized and edited intelligence briefings to match what the Administration wanted Bush to hear, we ended up with a 10 year destabilizing quagmire in the Middle East.
Economists give advice about the long term impacts of policy, a good idea when our businessmen are trained in short term stock optimization. The long term costs of pollution, of laying off workers in their 50s, of overwhelming college debt, of risky securitization of debt, of de-industrialization, of undoing social programs, of trade and trade wars, of climate change on farming, land use and water supplies are areas in which our business community have not shown a strength of knowledge.
But Trump's public face has been mostly ego wrapped in a loud voice and red tie. He cannot tolerate anyone who gainsays his won viewpoint. So economists won't have a seat at the table. The complicate Trump's simplistic worldview.
Economists give advice about the long term impacts of policy, a good idea when our businessmen are trained in short term stock optimization. The long term costs of pollution, of laying off workers in their 50s, of overwhelming college debt, of risky securitization of debt, of de-industrialization, of undoing social programs, of trade and trade wars, of climate change on farming, land use and water supplies are areas in which our business community have not shown a strength of knowledge.
But Trump's public face has been mostly ego wrapped in a loud voice and red tie. He cannot tolerate anyone who gainsays his won viewpoint. So economists won't have a seat at the table. The complicate Trump's simplistic worldview.
120
When the whole thrust of the Trump administration is to protect the top 1% and leave the rest on their own without any safety net where's the need for the economists or independent policy advisors?
157
This is correct. This is not about economics. It is about greed and power. Traditional economics has no role to play. Welcome to our new Trump International Casino-- The US Treasury.
The oft-viled 1% got there by their own or their ancestor's hard work, shrewd tactics, smart investment and/or perseverance. Why do they owe anyone anything.
Revised Comment : Had Donald Trump been legally required to release his tax returns, the American public would have been able to determine for themselves -at a minimum -whether he was a responsible, transparent business owner. Trumps's history as a business owner includes significant bankruptcies in businesses that are high risk. All of this could have been assessed as a factor in considering "fitness for office." It is no surprise that there will be no academics on the Council of Economic Advisors when we have The Donald leading the country into an economic quagmire.
It would be constructive to pass a Congressional bi-partisan law requiring every candidate running for President and Vice President to release 5 years of tax returns. It should be noted that every candidate on both sides of the aisle has voluntarily released tax returns since Watergate except The Donald who used the excuse that he was under audit. There is no provision in the US tax code prohibiting the release of tax returns while under audit. No one called The Donald out on that but regardless, he could rely on the fact that he was not legally required to do so.
I hope someone with clout in DC will read this and not only continue investigating the Russia connection (and possibly financing The Donald's businesses as many US banks will no longer lend to him) and close the loophole which permits people like The Donald to hold the most powerful position on the planet without releasing tax returns.
It would be constructive to pass a Congressional bi-partisan law requiring every candidate running for President and Vice President to release 5 years of tax returns. It should be noted that every candidate on both sides of the aisle has voluntarily released tax returns since Watergate except The Donald who used the excuse that he was under audit. There is no provision in the US tax code prohibiting the release of tax returns while under audit. No one called The Donald out on that but regardless, he could rely on the fact that he was not legally required to do so.
I hope someone with clout in DC will read this and not only continue investigating the Russia connection (and possibly financing The Donald's businesses as many US banks will no longer lend to him) and close the loophole which permits people like The Donald to hold the most powerful position on the planet without releasing tax returns.
98
There is an overemphasis on Trump's returns. His individual 1040 won't show his corporate structures and certainly wouldn't identify any gray area activities since by their very nature would be in the shadows.
2
LCA ... we'd find out a LOT more than you are suggesting, starting with just how much cumulative taxation he has avoided by the big stunt we know he engineered with his bankruptcies and is now illegal -- he structured the entities so that in bankruptcy he got to take the whole loss as his, for tax purposes. And independent analysis suggest these "losses" carried forward may have resulted in zero tax liability for many years, potentially even now.
An then all the reasons why Trump really doesn't want anyone to see his taxes -- we would learn where Trump's income comes from, and where he is losing money (and there are many evidences that some of his businesses are not doing well) ... and one could make a much better estimate of his real net worth.
And it provides a really good starting point to spot "the gray areas." In Trump's case, my bet it that it's a lot more than 50 shades of gray.
An then all the reasons why Trump really doesn't want anyone to see his taxes -- we would learn where Trump's income comes from, and where he is losing money (and there are many evidences that some of his businesses are not doing well) ... and one could make a much better estimate of his real net worth.
And it provides a really good starting point to spot "the gray areas." In Trump's case, my bet it that it's a lot more than 50 shades of gray.
Economists, like Krugman, know the past, but the future is yet to be written.
Once it's written, Economists are great.
We spent $9 trillion in debt that could easily be classed as stimulus during Obama's tenure, which should have led us to nirvana, according to Krugman's economic theories.
The goofy spirit that things will be better under Trump has us all spending and building and moving forward. Sweep away the regulations and allow local banks to thrive and lend in an new economy where motivated entrepreneurs get loans and build a new future has yet to be written.
Nobel did his prize for Economics because he did not believe we knew or understood Economics, thus anyone who figured out something was a genius deserving of a prize...I think he was correct.
Once it's written, Economists are great.
We spent $9 trillion in debt that could easily be classed as stimulus during Obama's tenure, which should have led us to nirvana, according to Krugman's economic theories.
The goofy spirit that things will be better under Trump has us all spending and building and moving forward. Sweep away the regulations and allow local banks to thrive and lend in an new economy where motivated entrepreneurs get loans and build a new future has yet to be written.
Nobel did his prize for Economics because he did not believe we knew or understood Economics, thus anyone who figured out something was a genius deserving of a prize...I think he was correct.
2
Full of errors.
Nobel did not set up a prize in economics.
What definition of stimulus are you using? Do you count every dollar spent by the federal government as stimulus?
Local banks are not lending because few people and businesses are applying.The FED places no restriction on how much a banks can lend uo to $115 million.
Businesses are not expanding because people do not have enough money to buy more stuff. Regulations have little to do with it.
The economy grew slowly after 2008 because the deficit was cut by 75%,
Nobel did not set up a prize in economics.
What definition of stimulus are you using? Do you count every dollar spent by the federal government as stimulus?
Local banks are not lending because few people and businesses are applying.The FED places no restriction on how much a banks can lend uo to $115 million.
Businesses are not expanding because people do not have enough money to buy more stuff. Regulations have little to do with it.
The economy grew slowly after 2008 because the deficit was cut by 75%,
30
Had Donald Trump been legally required to release his tax returns, the American public would have been able to determine for themselves -at a minimum -whether he was a responsible, transparent business owner. Trumps's history as a business owner includes significant bankruptcies in businesses that are high risk. All of this could have been assessed as a factor in considering "fitness for office." It is no surprise that there will be no academics on the Council of Economic Advisors when we have The Donald leading the country into an economic
It would be constructive to pass a Congressional bi-partisan law requiring every candidate running for President and Vice President to release 5 years of tax returns. It should be noted that every candidate on both sides of the aisle has voluntarily released tax returns since Watergate except The Donald who used the excuse that he was under audit. There is no provision in the US tax code prohibiting the release of tax returns while under audit. No one called The Donald out on that but regardless, he could rely on the fact that he was not legally required to do so.
I hope someone with clout in DC will read this and not only continue investigating the Russia connection (and possibly financing The Donald's businesses as many US banks will no longer lend to him) and close the loophole which permits people like The Donald to hold the most powerful position on the planet without releasing tax returns.
It would be constructive to pass a Congressional bi-partisan law requiring every candidate running for President and Vice President to release 5 years of tax returns. It should be noted that every candidate on both sides of the aisle has voluntarily released tax returns since Watergate except The Donald who used the excuse that he was under audit. There is no provision in the US tax code prohibiting the release of tax returns while under audit. No one called The Donald out on that but regardless, he could rely on the fact that he was not legally required to do so.
I hope someone with clout in DC will read this and not only continue investigating the Russia connection (and possibly financing The Donald's businesses as many US banks will no longer lend to him) and close the loophole which permits people like The Donald to hold the most powerful position on the planet without releasing tax returns.
16
Economists have missed virtually every trend/event of the last 25 years. Trump is going to drop a lot of what have become functions of the executive branch in the last 24 years through the Clinton, Bush & Obama presidencies. Thousands of the job openings that are now unfilled by the Trump administration will remain unfilled. All of the cabinet agencies will be thinned out, not just the EPA but state, HUD, HHS, Energy and down through the ranks. It's going to be a dry time for Washingtonian hangers on.
People don't seem to understand what Trump is all about. He ran and won by being against Obama, but what he's really against is the government that has grown through the last 3 administrations.
People don't seem to understand what Trump is all about. He ran and won by being against Obama, but what he's really against is the government that has grown through the last 3 administrations.
6
"Economists have missed virtually every trend/event of the last 25 years."
Some have, but many have not. You paint with too broad a brush.
Some have, but many have not. You paint with too broad a brush.
2
Back to the 1950's? Or is it the 1920's?
Another fallacy (lie) The government did not grow through the Obama administration. Yet Trump has already proposed growing the government with 5000-10,000 ICE police.
2
Well the aptly named dismal science has much to answer for since, under their presumed advice and guidance these last four administrations, we have an
"official" U6 unemployment rate pushing 10%, with certain sub-strata cohorts more than double that, and an as-yet unmeasured underground economy of off-books salaries and tax avoidance. Not to mention mega-corporations whose lobbyists manage to exempt these multi-billion dollar enterprises from any corporate tax. So where have these voices of reason been as the landscape is manicured for the elite but is left fallow for all others? What good is a seat at the table when you can't even descibe the menu? Stay where you belong - in those cavernous lecture halls where your droning acts as sominex for the required course prisoners.
"official" U6 unemployment rate pushing 10%, with certain sub-strata cohorts more than double that, and an as-yet unmeasured underground economy of off-books salaries and tax avoidance. Not to mention mega-corporations whose lobbyists manage to exempt these multi-billion dollar enterprises from any corporate tax. So where have these voices of reason been as the landscape is manicured for the elite but is left fallow for all others? What good is a seat at the table when you can't even descibe the menu? Stay where you belong - in those cavernous lecture halls where your droning acts as sominex for the required course prisoners.
6
U6 is not official and after peaking at 17% is returning toward the-crash minimum of 8%
Stay where you belong. In front of your TV or computer experiencing only what you want to. Ignorance is bliss.
I believe this newspaper reported today that it is not true that the president intends to do away with th CEA Chair. It is rumored to be Kevin Hassett
2
The article did NOT say that the CEA chair will not be filled, only that the Trump administration will not be taking his or her advice so seriously. The good thing about economics is that it predicts consequences. Sometimes economists get it wrong, since most economic policies can't be tested in a randomized clinical trial. Scientists of all stripe are in a bad way when it comes to countering strong policy positions, because the essence of science (including economics) is to test, re-test, consider counter evidence as it arises, admit errors, adjust theories and models accordingly, and try to do better. In other words, real facts matter.
6
Judy, history provides a way to test economic policies. For example, since it shows that ALL 6 times we balanced the budget for long enough to significantly (10%) pay down the debt, we fell into a real gut wrenching depression, one ought to think carefully about The Balanced Budget Amendment.
10
Ups and downs are a natural part of the free market and is not government's responsibility to moderate them. However, it actually IS the responsibility of government to collect as little as possible in taxes, to in turn spend it wisely and to adhere to acting only in areas spelled out in the Constitution. As an example, Nassau County NY, among the highest taxed populations in the US, spends huge amounts on athletic fields, golf courses and water parks that are not called for in the Constitution.
2
Why should this Trump administration seek the insights of professional economists when they already have all the smart answers? Besides, Trump is the living incarnation of perfection and is never wrong about anything. If you doubt this just ask him - he will tell you, and very loudly.
Consider the level of 'professionals' that Trump is surrounding himself with: Betsy DeVos, Ben Carson, Tom Price, Rick Perry, Scott Pruitt and so on. Why should the level of economic advice be on any higher level?
Republicans do not learn from experience and they are repeating the same mistakes of the GW administration, as when Cheney boasted, "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, ...
Yes, they acted again and again, and we are still cleaning up their mess. It will be the same with this Republican administration.
Consider the level of 'professionals' that Trump is surrounding himself with: Betsy DeVos, Ben Carson, Tom Price, Rick Perry, Scott Pruitt and so on. Why should the level of economic advice be on any higher level?
Republicans do not learn from experience and they are repeating the same mistakes of the GW administration, as when Cheney boasted, "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, ...
Yes, they acted again and again, and we are still cleaning up their mess. It will be the same with this Republican administration.
252
Why focus on the Republicans? They are a lost cause. Focus on the Congressional Democrats. Where is the outrage from them? Why is the Democratic Party so weak and ineffective? How can we pressure them to be unified in speaking out against this Administration?
2
Yeah, DeVos for Education, Governor Goodhair to Energy. Goodhair&Glasses couldn't even count to three, but Energy was a department he said he'd get rid of, now he leads it.
And of course Pruitt at EPA -- every action Pruitt commenced against the EPA that have come to conclusion he lost (two are stalled in court at the moment, and may become null because the Trump administration may withdraw them).
This administration is Billionaire Bozos and alt-Right nobodies top to bottom ... except for a handful of military men ... and Flynn was Trump's first choice.
And of course Pruitt at EPA -- every action Pruitt commenced against the EPA that have come to conclusion he lost (two are stalled in court at the moment, and may become null because the Trump administration may withdraw them).
This administration is Billionaire Bozos and alt-Right nobodies top to bottom ... except for a handful of military men ... and Flynn was Trump's first choice.
2
We will cleaning up their mess for decades, IF, and this is big "if," we survive it.
1
I believe it has to do with being unkempt. Mullainathan is typical: he may know a lot about inflation, but ask him what the going price should be for a haircut and he'll probably return a blank stare. There's many such, including one who scared the wits off a US airways passenger last year who couldn't but help wonder what the connection was in the triple integrals this economist was furiously scribbling, his unkempt hair, his beard, and Arabic. To her great and understandable relief, the airline put her on a different flight. Then there's a Krugman: too much facial hair, Bernanke: only facial hair, and Greenspan, hardly any hair. All end up looking always too wise, painfully condescending before uttering even the first word, unfit in any meeting room.
Short summary: Economists have to work on their appearances before regaining acceptance in the cabinet. In the short term that rules out men. Great times ahead for women economists!
Short summary: Economists have to work on their appearances before regaining acceptance in the cabinet. In the short term that rules out men. Great times ahead for women economists!
7
@TMK
At first, I was skeptical of the logic of your observations, then I considered Trump's pouffy hairstyle. Your post is spot on! He makes a terribly destructive economist.
At first, I was skeptical of the logic of your observations, then I considered Trump's pouffy hairstyle. Your post is spot on! He makes a terribly destructive economist.
1
Even after reading this article I am not convinced. It leaves too many questions unanswered.
For example, was the Clinton Economic council able to understand the impact of Nafta on US factories?
If yes, why did it recommend it? Let me guess here: an economist imagined that some job market would come along and pick up the slack. Oh, that was real estate and it lead us to 2008.
If no, then we can ask if those people are any better than charlatans.
Other question: GATT. Did the economic council know that letting China into GATT would translate into their monopolizing manufacturing? Now everything is made in China. Did they know that it will take so many jobs away from the US?
Same remarks here, if they didn't know they are frauds, if they did they should be investigated for potential treason.
Finally were those economists able to understand what was going on in the real estate market before 2008 and advise president Bush of the danger of the situation? Apparently not.
It is obvious that economist is a failed profession and I am glad, given their dismal track record, that they will not be invited to the WH.
For example, was the Clinton Economic council able to understand the impact of Nafta on US factories?
If yes, why did it recommend it? Let me guess here: an economist imagined that some job market would come along and pick up the slack. Oh, that was real estate and it lead us to 2008.
If no, then we can ask if those people are any better than charlatans.
Other question: GATT. Did the economic council know that letting China into GATT would translate into their monopolizing manufacturing? Now everything is made in China. Did they know that it will take so many jobs away from the US?
Same remarks here, if they didn't know they are frauds, if they did they should be investigated for potential treason.
Finally were those economists able to understand what was going on in the real estate market before 2008 and advise president Bush of the danger of the situation? Apparently not.
It is obvious that economist is a failed profession and I am glad, given their dismal track record, that they will not be invited to the WH.
7
Economists in Washington generally advise rather than make actual decisions. You may not like that but it is true. The decisions you lament that sent US jobs overseas were made by managers and owners, including the current President, who sourced many of his products from China (and Chinese rather than American workers). Many of the decisions leading to the 2008 crash and its aftermath were made by bankers rather than economists, such as the Goldman Sachs veterans in the current administration.
Economists are sometimes disagreeable people and they sometimes give bad advice. They also sometimes give sound and defensible advice. I appreciate your interest in supporting the work of the new regime in upending the establishment, sticking it to the man, and any other cliches you wish to add.
Doing without sound advice on important decisions is certainly one way to shake things up in the economy. Whether the result will be better than where we are now is another question, however, and I doubt that winging it, as the current regime prefers to do, will lead to improvements. It is not obvious to me that economics is a failed profession. Time will tell.
You might want to proof your posts more, and try for spelling, grammar, and complete sentences. If you do not, you may find that some readers will imagine you to be a Republican troll - doing God's work in opposing the NYT. I know you are deeper than that.
Economists are sometimes disagreeable people and they sometimes give bad advice. They also sometimes give sound and defensible advice. I appreciate your interest in supporting the work of the new regime in upending the establishment, sticking it to the man, and any other cliches you wish to add.
Doing without sound advice on important decisions is certainly one way to shake things up in the economy. Whether the result will be better than where we are now is another question, however, and I doubt that winging it, as the current regime prefers to do, will lead to improvements. It is not obvious to me that economics is a failed profession. Time will tell.
You might want to proof your posts more, and try for spelling, grammar, and complete sentences. If you do not, you may find that some readers will imagine you to be a Republican troll - doing God's work in opposing the NYT. I know you are deeper than that.
24
re NAFTA: signed by GW Bush December 17, 1992, hr ran out of time fast-tracking it; Clinton signed it after insisting on two side agreements:
"The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), to protect workers and the environment, plus allay the concerns of many House members. It also required U.S. partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement
If businesses and banks decide to operate without good faith and in pursuit of nothing but greed, their own countries, communities, neighbors be damned, can one blame economists?
"The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), to protect workers and the environment, plus allay the concerns of many House members. It also required U.S. partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement
If businesses and banks decide to operate without good faith and in pursuit of nothing but greed, their own countries, communities, neighbors be damned, can one blame economists?
24
The reality is that economists in government, and those who have the public attention, have always been "Chicago School" types in the last 50 years. And this school of economics has never given a damn about "distributional effects," nor have the wealthy and the powerful.
The airy-fairy nonsense has always proceeded from the idea that there is an efficient market in labor -- that labor is just another good in a bigger wider market; of no more concern or special interest than pork bellies or lipstick.
These economists don't care about the people who lose; they expect that they will disappear the way any failing business or product that cannot compete does.
The airy-fairy nonsense has always proceeded from the idea that there is an efficient market in labor -- that labor is just another good in a bigger wider market; of no more concern or special interest than pork bellies or lipstick.
These economists don't care about the people who lose; they expect that they will disappear the way any failing business or product that cannot compete does.
"Economists Have Been Demoted in Washington. That’s a Bad Idea."
I agree with that "bad idea" headline as it relates to government policy. However, that perspective overlooks the social benefit of being "demoted" by Mr. Trump. Only the best and brightest are being targeted by Trump for elimination -- those committed to professional standards over personal loyalties and government contracts. Getting a visible spot on the Enemies List is a feather in the cap of economists.
At the same time, being on the Enemies List doesn't cause rational people to change their opinion or need for economists. Outside of Washington, life goes on.
Trump's demotion of economists is akin to The NY Times being singled out by Trump for special criticism, then being banned from his press secretary's briefing session. Before this thing is done, Trump's Enemies List will be famous -- as Nixon's was.
I agree with that "bad idea" headline as it relates to government policy. However, that perspective overlooks the social benefit of being "demoted" by Mr. Trump. Only the best and brightest are being targeted by Trump for elimination -- those committed to professional standards over personal loyalties and government contracts. Getting a visible spot on the Enemies List is a feather in the cap of economists.
At the same time, being on the Enemies List doesn't cause rational people to change their opinion or need for economists. Outside of Washington, life goes on.
Trump's demotion of economists is akin to The NY Times being singled out by Trump for special criticism, then being banned from his press secretary's briefing session. Before this thing is done, Trump's Enemies List will be famous -- as Nixon's was.
38
If the good Professor wants to protect academic integrity, he should focus on the Fellows of Harvard Yard.
1
Reading the business tea leafs and applying the business religion as a high priest of the economy is not an easy job. There are just flat out so many variables involved and a single variable can change the perfect economic model into a complete mess.
Economist can fall into the fun trap of analysis paralysis quite often, or predicting the future with past models that no longer make sense. That being said .... decisions are needing to be made based up on the action and reaction of business decisions, and the author brings out the analysis of the ethics and morals of those actions.
With Trump being installed, the populace has clearly stated the work and output of the current batch of economists has failed. Not only have they failed but as a lot they have failed over a thirty year period based upon the experiences of main street versus the halls of academia and wall street. From a work view ... economist have been given a PIP (performance improvement plan) for those that are worthy to some getting fired.
Whether it is wrong/right, time will tell, and the views of how things are going based upon political glasses of the person.
Obama and his crew also messed with the numbers through altering the GDP calculations to inflate them 1-2% and a variety of other things, while having media pundits applaud his work. Now the pendulum swings another direction, so may we live in interesting economic times!
Economist can fall into the fun trap of analysis paralysis quite often, or predicting the future with past models that no longer make sense. That being said .... decisions are needing to be made based up on the action and reaction of business decisions, and the author brings out the analysis of the ethics and morals of those actions.
With Trump being installed, the populace has clearly stated the work and output of the current batch of economists has failed. Not only have they failed but as a lot they have failed over a thirty year period based upon the experiences of main street versus the halls of academia and wall street. From a work view ... economist have been given a PIP (performance improvement plan) for those that are worthy to some getting fired.
Whether it is wrong/right, time will tell, and the views of how things are going based upon political glasses of the person.
Obama and his crew also messed with the numbers through altering the GDP calculations to inflate them 1-2% and a variety of other things, while having media pundits applaud his work. Now the pendulum swings another direction, so may we live in interesting economic times!
2
Actually Alan, while there are many factors in economic analysis, there is one factor which seems to be the overriding one, That is the flow of money in or out of the private sector. For example, Keynes tells us that the boom is the time for austerity at the Treasury. Yet ALL 6 times we have eliminated deficits and significantly paid down the federal debt, we have fallen into a real gut wrenching depression. This was because when we have federal surpluses (& we don't have a huge trade surplus), money flows OUT of the private sector. All 6 time this led to an explosion of private debt and over leveraged banks, and then to disaster.
A similar thing happened in 1996 - 2008, when except for a brief period in 2003, the trade deficit was larger than the federal deficit so again money flowed out of the private sector. Again private debt exploded. We avoided a real depression only because the FED poured money into the banking system.
A similar thing happened in 1996 - 2008, when except for a brief period in 2003, the trade deficit was larger than the federal deficit so again money flowed out of the private sector. Again private debt exploded. We avoided a real depression only because the FED poured money into the banking system.
5
Len - It has been my experience that almost no one understands what actually happened in 2007 - 2008 and similarly why Bernanke did what he did. The American economy functions in a credit universe which was unleashed over the decades post WWII. Bretton Woods et al. As is the case generally, Americans have little taste for history, economic or otherwise. So it goes.
4
badman - There were economists that predicted 2008. The first thing to realize is that the federal deficit measures the flow of money FROM the federal government TO the private sector.
The first chart at http://www.slideshare. net/MitchGreen/mmt-basics-you- cannot-consider-the- deficit-in-isolation shows what happened.
In the 1990's spending and the deficit were reduced. The flow of money out of the federal sector was reduced.
Simultaneously the flow of money into the private sector was reduced. Then in about 1996 money began to flow out of the private sector, out of the country in fact. In about 1998, Money started flowing into the federal sector. This is the Clinton surplus. Money was rapidly flowing out of the private sector.
In 2001, the Bush administration started, and we had deficits again, but our trade deficit was really large. Except for a brief period in 2003, the Bush deficits were not large enough to compensate for the money going out of the country. Money still flowed out of the private sector.
People then turned to banks to get money. Private debt exploded. But the banks could create only so much money.
Finally in 2008, the economy crashes. Now there certainly were other factors which contributed to the 2008 crash. e.g. high inequality meant the Rich had excess money to speculate with, but the cumulative effect of money leaving the private sector from about 1996 to 2008 and the resultant huge increase in private debt was the main cause.
The first chart at http://www.slideshare. net/MitchGreen/mmt-basics-you- cannot-consider-the- deficit-in-isolation shows what happened.
In the 1990's spending and the deficit were reduced. The flow of money out of the federal sector was reduced.
Simultaneously the flow of money into the private sector was reduced. Then in about 1996 money began to flow out of the private sector, out of the country in fact. In about 1998, Money started flowing into the federal sector. This is the Clinton surplus. Money was rapidly flowing out of the private sector.
In 2001, the Bush administration started, and we had deficits again, but our trade deficit was really large. Except for a brief period in 2003, the Bush deficits were not large enough to compensate for the money going out of the country. Money still flowed out of the private sector.
People then turned to banks to get money. Private debt exploded. But the banks could create only so much money.
Finally in 2008, the economy crashes. Now there certainly were other factors which contributed to the 2008 crash. e.g. high inequality meant the Rich had excess money to speculate with, but the cumulative effect of money leaving the private sector from about 1996 to 2008 and the resultant huge increase in private debt was the main cause.
5
As a card carrying economist mist I sympathize with the professor. However, all too many economists refuse to admit that there is much that we don't know, but we opine anyway. Maybe it will be good for all concerned to have a partial time out on the influence of economists in government. Perhaps we will learn some humility.
5
Just finished reading the ex-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s book “The Courage to Act”. An incredible book that is very readable while giving excellent detail on the workings of the Fed and others before, during and after the financial crises and the follow-on recession. The very idea of down grading the voices and actions of very bright economists in any administration is frightening and dangerous.
Those who doubt the positive and necessary influence of smart economists to help steer our 18 trillion dollar economy, with its extensive international inter-connectivity, should read Ben’s book before rattling off simplistic criticisms of the profession.
Those who doubt the positive and necessary influence of smart economists to help steer our 18 trillion dollar economy, with its extensive international inter-connectivity, should read Ben’s book before rattling off simplistic criticisms of the profession.
17
If we did not have all those smart economists steering our $18 Trillion economy, would our $20 Trillion debt be 3X larger? Would our 2017 $620 Billion deficit be lots bigger? Would our $500 Billion trade deficit equal our entire economic output? Would that $2.6 Trillion in off shore corporate profits have been kept at home? Would 100 Million Americans be living in poverty? Yeah, those smart guys have certainly kept a steady hand on the rudder of State.
4
Actually, all of your data points are fiscal policy issues. So it is primarily the actions of politicians that influence those social and economic measurements. What the article is pointing out is that the lack of high level economic experience influencing those political decisions can lead to much worse conditions.
That is why I referenced Bernanke’s book because it was so illuminating on the extremely difficult and deep thinking required to make the best of the economic system we have built for ourselves and the changing environment we find ourselves in. Of course, we could scrap the whole thing and rebuild from scratch. But, I’d rather have the best minds trying their best to make this one work for now.
That is why I referenced Bernanke’s book because it was so illuminating on the extremely difficult and deep thinking required to make the best of the economic system we have built for ourselves and the changing environment we find ourselves in. Of course, we could scrap the whole thing and rebuild from scratch. But, I’d rather have the best minds trying their best to make this one work for now.
13
Economists aren't perfect but they do tend to look at the big picture when making decisions. Considering Trump's cabinet picks you can see why big picture thinkers wouldn't be welcome at the table. These are people, Trump included who only care about personal profit. They don't care who will be hurt as long as they make money and they don't want that voice of reason to cloud their agenda.
Right now we just need to focus on the midterms and elect people who will block the more controversial aspects of the Republican agenda. We truly need leadership who will put country before party and think of the bigger picture.
Right now we just need to focus on the midterms and elect people who will block the more controversial aspects of the Republican agenda. We truly need leadership who will put country before party and think of the bigger picture.
52
It's their own fault. They have no business predicting the economic future as they have been wrong so often in the past.
7
So are weather forecasters. Should we close the weather bureau?
19
Weather forecasters focus on the short term and are generally accurate.
5
But some have been correct a lot more often than others.
Prof. Mullainathan's concerns are well taken. Especially when considering this administration's arms-length relationship to truth and facts in any form and his party's relationship to science in general and social science in particular.
But I would add a couple caveats to the professor's comments.
1) Besides the real possibility of a successful CEO's lacking a sophisticated grasp of macroeconomics, there's also a good possibility that a CEO might not even know what is in his OWN company's long term interests. They are charged, after all, with "maximizing shareholder value" and only for the short run. That short run goal is almost always contrary to a business's long term success since it involves cutting R & D, cutting costs, laying off experienced employees and placing a lower priority on its customers' needs.
2) While "professional" economists might give better advice to a president than a former CEO, one has to look into their background. If they come from a Koch-funded think tank or organization (e.g. Heritage, Cato, Manhattan Inst, ALEC, AFP, AEI, etc.) you can expect pseudo-economic advice based on falsified data.
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/the-mystery-of-moore/
But I would add a couple caveats to the professor's comments.
1) Besides the real possibility of a successful CEO's lacking a sophisticated grasp of macroeconomics, there's also a good possibility that a CEO might not even know what is in his OWN company's long term interests. They are charged, after all, with "maximizing shareholder value" and only for the short run. That short run goal is almost always contrary to a business's long term success since it involves cutting R & D, cutting costs, laying off experienced employees and placing a lower priority on its customers' needs.
2) While "professional" economists might give better advice to a president than a former CEO, one has to look into their background. If they come from a Koch-funded think tank or organization (e.g. Heritage, Cato, Manhattan Inst, ALEC, AFP, AEI, etc.) you can expect pseudo-economic advice based on falsified data.
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/the-mystery-of-moore/
14
The USA has selected a casino "mogul" whose assets and liabilities are not a matter of public record through the filing of tax returns, and his record of business accomplishments is dotted with episodes of bankruptcy. The country has obviously opted to place a gambler in charge of its economy. In this context, why would economists matter - given that their understand of national and global finance would expose the casino mogul's intellectual limitations?
289
Yes, like climate change and real fact-based science, we're on a roller coaster of dubious hunches and "deals" for the next, at least, 2 years. If and when our electorate comes to their senses in 2018, we can put the brakes on casino-style economics; that's if we're not in full alt-reality implosion.
The Trumpster would never admit his policies, or lack thereof, could possibly lead to anything other than "more success than this country's ever known. Who needs economists when we're promised Oz based on a conman's "success"?
The Trumpster would never admit his policies, or lack thereof, could possibly lead to anything other than "more success than this country's ever known. Who needs economists when we're promised Oz based on a conman's "success"?
19
Well, i"m a non-economist, without much of a grip on the exact quantities that will move from here to there when matters of trade inhibition, immigration, good-old-days manufacturing jobs restoration, economic stimulus, tax-policy, and Fed policy, come up. I'm overwhelmed, with or without the imperfect but much-better-than-nothing input from economists.
I'm certainly dubious about the likely success of some of the proposed and ongoing trade inhibition, restoring old-fashioned manufacturing jobs in Erie, PA, etc., but mainly, I have no idea where the economy will be in 4 years.
All I can do is watch the experiment run, and then start looking in 4 years at where we are.
It will certainly be interesting.
I'm certainly dubious about the likely success of some of the proposed and ongoing trade inhibition, restoring old-fashioned manufacturing jobs in Erie, PA, etc., but mainly, I have no idea where the economy will be in 4 years.
All I can do is watch the experiment run, and then start looking in 4 years at where we are.
It will certainly be interesting.
As one of my old college professors once said "If you can not say anything good or bad about something, you can always say that it is interesting".
2
Alternative facts, that's the ticket.
9
The problem isn’t the economists; the problem is the politicians who choose from only one school of thought and then only selectively listen to these, which then becomes a problem for academics, whose good names are used for political cover for a policy they don’t fully support, which doesn’t work as promised. I think a number of economists with the Obama Administration, especially at the beginning of his first term, would like to set the historical record straight on this point.
10
That makes a lot of sense. Meanwhile there are all the Paul Krugmans.
The wrong economists have been giving the advice that Washington and Europe have been taking. The result has been decades of policy failures, and gradual loss of faith in the economics profession. Stop listening to the quacks. It's time to tune out the free marketeers and tune in the Keynesians, like Paul Krugman. Keynesian economics works in the real world.
72
Krugman Paul is only a Keynesian when there is a Democrat in the White House.
10
Actually, the Keynesians were wrong in 2008. There were economists that predicted 2008 and they were not Keynesians. The first thing to realize is that the federal deficit measures the flow of money FROM the federal government TO the private sector.
In the 1990's spending and the deficit were reduced. The flow of money out of the federal sector was reduced.
Simultaneously the flow of money into the private sector was reduced. Then in about 1996 money began to flow out of the private sector, out of the country in fact. In about 1998, Money started flowing into the federal sector. This is the Clinton surplus. Money was rapidly flowing out of the private sector.
In 2001, the Bush administration started, and we had deficits again, but our trade deficit was really large. Except for a brief period in 2003, the Bush deficits were not large enough to compensate for the money going out of the country. Money still flowed out of the private sector.
People then turned to banks to get money. Private debt exploded. But the banks could create only so much money.
Finally in 2008, the economy crashes. Now there certainly were other factors which contributed to the 2008 crash. e.g. high inequality meant the Rich had excess money to speculate with, but the cumulative effect of money leaving the private sector from about 1996 to 2008 and the resultant huge increase in private debt was the main cause.
In the 1990's spending and the deficit were reduced. The flow of money out of the federal sector was reduced.
Simultaneously the flow of money into the private sector was reduced. Then in about 1996 money began to flow out of the private sector, out of the country in fact. In about 1998, Money started flowing into the federal sector. This is the Clinton surplus. Money was rapidly flowing out of the private sector.
In 2001, the Bush administration started, and we had deficits again, but our trade deficit was really large. Except for a brief period in 2003, the Bush deficits were not large enough to compensate for the money going out of the country. Money still flowed out of the private sector.
People then turned to banks to get money. Private debt exploded. But the banks could create only so much money.
Finally in 2008, the economy crashes. Now there certainly were other factors which contributed to the 2008 crash. e.g. high inequality meant the Rich had excess money to speculate with, but the cumulative effect of money leaving the private sector from about 1996 to 2008 and the resultant huge increase in private debt was the main cause.
3
Spending did not decline during the 1990's and there never was a surplus under Clinton, despite the fact that the economy was booming because of low energy prices after the OPEC cartel collapsed.
1
This is not going to end well for the trump administration. More importantly, its going to have a devastating impact on the American people.
183
worse than 2008? that mess was Rubin, Greenspan, and Summers under Clinton.
1
Unlike the devastating impact that our chief economist, Alan Greenspan, wrought on the American people from his lofty position of US Chairman Of The Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html
"...[in 2008] Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and had failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending...'Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief'...”
"Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists." - John Kenneth Galbraith
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html
"...[in 2008] Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and had failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending...'Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief'...”
"Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists." - John Kenneth Galbraith
considering the sad and pathetic state of this field, particularly macroeconomics, is any of this really a surprise?
4
What is next for this administration, eliminating all of the astrophysicist in our attempt to go to Mars?
19
The Trump administration is off on the wrong track, attempting the impossible reversal of automation and expert systems. Why would they want to employ economist naysayers?
17
John, you may want to consider two pieces of data:
1. Productivivty has not been rising much recently. You might think if "automation and expert systems" are having a large influence, it would. After all, fewer people can producing more stuff is the very definition of risisng productivity.
2. Countries with more robots, more automation and expert systems" are doing better with manufacturing jobs than countries with fewer.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2015/04/29/dont-blame-the-robo...
For example:
"Yet the evidence suggests there is essentially no relationship between the change in manufacturing employment and robot use. Despite the installation of far more robots between 1993 and 2007, Germany lost just 19 percent of its manufacturing jobs between 1996 and 2012 compared to a 33 percent drop in the United States. (We introduce a three-year time lag to allow for robots to influence the labor market and continued with the most recent data, 2012). Korea, France, and Italy also lost fewer manufacturing jobs than the United States even as they introduced more industrial robots. On the other hand, countries like the United Kingdom and Australia invested less in robots but saw faster declines in their manufacturing sectors."
1. Productivivty has not been rising much recently. You might think if "automation and expert systems" are having a large influence, it would. After all, fewer people can producing more stuff is the very definition of risisng productivity.
2. Countries with more robots, more automation and expert systems" are doing better with manufacturing jobs than countries with fewer.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2015/04/29/dont-blame-the-robo...
For example:
"Yet the evidence suggests there is essentially no relationship between the change in manufacturing employment and robot use. Despite the installation of far more robots between 1993 and 2007, Germany lost just 19 percent of its manufacturing jobs between 1996 and 2012 compared to a 33 percent drop in the United States. (We introduce a three-year time lag to allow for robots to influence the labor market and continued with the most recent data, 2012). Korea, France, and Italy also lost fewer manufacturing jobs than the United States even as they introduced more industrial robots. On the other hand, countries like the United Kingdom and Australia invested less in robots but saw faster declines in their manufacturing sectors."
4
When you have a President and close advisors that are serial liars and deal in alternative facts it’s not difficult to understand why there will not be a cabinet position for academic economists.
Unfortunately this administration will publicize about anything that makes them look great regardless of whether or not it’s a fact. And will punish anyone that publishes accurate information that does not make them look good to those that voted for them.
So, we’ll have 4% GDP, millions of jobs will be added, all manufacturing. And PA, OH, ID, and the South will be booming with those jobs shortly!
Take my word for it, for “I alone can fix it”.
Unfortunately this administration will publicize about anything that makes them look great regardless of whether or not it’s a fact. And will punish anyone that publishes accurate information that does not make them look good to those that voted for them.
So, we’ll have 4% GDP, millions of jobs will be added, all manufacturing. And PA, OH, ID, and the South will be booming with those jobs shortly!
Take my word for it, for “I alone can fix it”.
172