For grins I did the google search you mentioned, John, and found a flyer saying 10 Nobel Laureates think Bush's tax cuts are wrong. I started thinking, if Prescott is so far off base from other Nobel Laureates on governmental economic policies, why was he given a Nobel prize? Economics is broad field, so I thought I'd check areas of expertise for the laureates mentioned:
Edward Prescott - "for their contributions to dynamic macroeconomics: the time consistency of economic policy and the driving forces behind business cycles"
George Akerlof/Joseph Stiglitz - analysis of markets with asymmetric info
Daniel McFadden – for his development of theory and methods for analyzing discrete choice
Douglass North - "for having renewed research in economic history by applying economic theory and quantitative methods in order to explain economic and institutional change"
William Sharpe - "for their pioneering work in the theory of financial economics"
Robert M Solow – for his contributions to the theory of economic growth
Franco Modigliani - For his pioneering analyses of saving and financial markets
Lawrence R Klein - "for the creation of econometric models and the application to the analysis of economic fluctuations and economic policies
Kenneth Arrow - for their pioneering contributions to general economic equilibrium theory and welfare theory
Paul Samuelson - for the scientific work through which he has developed static and dynamic economic theory and actively contributed to raising the level of analysis in economic science
I'm no expert of economics, but based on these brief explanations of awards, Prescott's seemed to be the only award specific to economic policy theory. (Klein's mentions economic policy but his was specific to data modeling)
No problem interesting enough to debate about has a simple answer. Is Prescott right? I don't know, I don't think anyone knows definitively. If we did then we wouldn't need people studying it so intensely. But it still seems to me that taking money out of the economy (through taxation) can't possibly be good for the economy.
The Economist article pretty much admits its pool of professors are biased to the left (as most in academia are). I found it odd that the author dismissed this point by saying - but none of them wanted to be in politics. Obviously this doesn't mean they are not liberal. I am not interested in politics either, but I'd definitely consider myself conservative.
So, according to this guy, Bush can't even do tax cuts correctly? That is so sad.
Also, from The Economist, an economist poll.
Just for the hell of it:
Google: nobel laureate bush tax cuts
Result
For grins I did the google search you mentioned, John, and found a flyer saying 10 Nobel Laureates think Bush's tax cuts are wrong. I started thinking, if Prescott is so far off base from other Nobel Laureates on governmental economic policies, why was he given a Nobel prize? Economics is broad field, so I thought I'd check areas of expertise for the laureates mentioned:
Edward Prescott - "for their contributions to dynamic macroeconomics: the time consistency of economic policy and the driving forces behind business cycles"
George Akerlof/Joseph Stiglitz - analysis of markets with asymmetric info
Daniel McFadden – for his development of theory and methods for analyzing discrete choice
Douglass North - "for having renewed research in economic history by applying economic theory and quantitative methods in order to explain economic and institutional change"
William Sharpe - "for their pioneering work in the theory of financial economics"
Robert M Solow – for his contributions to the theory of economic growth
Franco Modigliani - For his pioneering analyses of saving and financial markets
Lawrence R Klein - "for the creation of econometric models and the application to the analysis of economic fluctuations and economic policies
Kenneth Arrow - for their pioneering contributions to general economic equilibrium theory and welfare theory
Paul Samuelson - for the scientific work through which he has developed static and dynamic economic theory and actively contributed to raising the level of analysis in economic science
I'm no expert of economics, but based on these brief explanations of awards, Prescott's seemed to be the only award specific to economic policy theory. (Klein's mentions economic policy but his was specific to data modeling)
No problem interesting enough to debate about has a simple answer. Is Prescott right? I don't know, I don't think anyone knows definitively. If we did then we wouldn't need people studying it so intensely. But it still seems to me that taking money out of the economy (through taxation) can't possibly be good for the economy.
The Economist article pretty much admits its pool of professors are biased to the left (as most in academia are). I found it odd that the author dismissed this point by saying - but none of them wanted to be in politics. Obviously this doesn't mean they are not liberal. I am not interested in politics either, but I'd definitely consider myself conservative.
» Post a Comment