The Economist's poll of economists: Examining the candidates - The Orange Mane

W*GS · 10-05-2008, 10:05 AM

The Economist's poll of economists

Examining the candidates
Oct 2nd 2008 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

In our special report on the election we analyse the two candidates’ economic plans. Here, we ask professional economists to give us their views

AS THE financial crisis pushes the economy back to the top of voters’ concerns, Barack Obama is starting to open up a clear lead over John McCain in the opinion polls. But among those who study economics for a living, Mr Obama’s lead is much more commanding. A survey of academic economists by The Economist finds the majority—at times by overwhelming margins—believe Mr Obama has the superior economic plan, a firmer grasp of economics and will appoint better economic advisers.

Our survey is not, by any means, a scientific poll of all economists. We e-mailed a questionnaire to 683 research associates, all we could track down, of the National Bureau of Economic Research, America’s premier association of applied academic economists, though the NBER itself played no role in the survey. A total of 142 responded, of whom 46% identified themselves as Democrats, 10% as Republicans and 44% as neither. This skewed party breakdown may reflect academia’s Democratic tilt, or possibly Democrats’ greater propensity to respond. Still, even if we exclude respondents with a party identification, Mr Obama retains a strong edge—though the McCain campaign should be buoyed by the fact that 530 economists have signed a statement endorsing his plans.

Does their opinion matter? Economics is just one of the many things the next president will have to worry about; voters still seem to prefer Mr McCain on foreign policy. And even on the economy, economists may not have the same priorities as the population at large. Arguably, what a president says about economics on the campaign trail is less important than how he responds to the unexpected challenges that inevitably arise once he is in office.

Yet economists’ opinions should count for something because irrespective of any party affiliation, most of them approach policy decisions with the same basic tool kit. Their assessment of the candidates’ economic credentials and plans represents an informed judgment on how well they will handle difficult trade-offs between efficiency, equity, growth and consensus-building.

Regardless of party affiliation, our respondents generally agree the economy is in bad shape, that the election is important to the course of economic policy and that the housing and financial crisis is the most critical economic issue facing America.

The detailed responses are bad news for Mr McCain (the full data are available here). Eighty per cent of respondents and no fewer than 71% of those who do not cleave to either main party say Mr Obama has a better grasp of economics. Even among Republicans Mr Obama has the edge: 46% versus 23% say Mr Obama has the better grasp of the subject. “I take McCain’s word on this one,” comments James Harrigan at the University of Virginia, a reference to Mr McCain’s infamous confession that he does not know as much about economics as he should. In fairness, Mr McCain’s lower grade may in part reflect greater candour about his weaknesses. Mr Obama’s more tightly managed image leaves fewer opportunities for such unvarnished introspection.

A candidate’s economic expertise may matter rather less if he surrounds himself with clever advisers. Unfortunately for Mr McCain, 81% of all respondents reckon Mr Obama is more likely to do that; among unaffiliated respondents, 71% say so. That is despite praise across party lines for the excellent Doug Holtz-Eakin, Mr McCain’s most prominent economic adviser and a former head of the Congressional Budget Office. “Although I have tended to vote Republican,” one reply says, “the Democrats have a deep pool of talented, moderate economists.”

There is an apparent contradiction between most economists’ support for free trade, low taxes and less intervention in the market and the low marks many give to Mr McCain, who is generally more supportive of those things than Mr Obama. It probably reflects a perception that the Republican Party under George Bush has subverted many of those ideals for ideology and political gain. Indeed, the majority of respondents rate Mr Bush’s economic record as very bad, and Republican respondents are only slightly less critical.

“John McCain has professed disdain for ‘so-called economists’, and for some the feeling has become mutual,” says Erik Brynjolfsson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management. “Obama’s team is mainstream and non-ideological but extremely talented.”

On our one-to-five scale, economists on average give Mr Obama’s economic programme a 3.3 and Mr McCain’s a 2.2. Mr Obama, says Jonathan Parker, a non-aligned professor at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, “is a pragmatist not an ideologue. I expect Clintonian economic policies.” If, that is, crushing federal debt does not derail his taxing and spending plans.

On his plans to fix the financial crisis, Mr Obama averages 3.1, a point higher than Mr McCain. Still, some said they didn’t quite know what they were rating—reasonably enough, since neither candidate has produced clear plans of his own.

Where the candidates’ positions are more clearly articulated, Mr Obama scores better on nearly every issue: promoting fiscal discipline, energy policy, reducing the number of people without health insurance, controlling health-care costs, reforming financial regulation and boosting long-run economic growth. Twice as many economists think Mr McCain’s plan would be bad or very bad for long-run growth as Mr Obama’s. Given how much focus Mr McCain has put on his plan’s benefits for growth, this last is quite a repudiation.

Mr McCain gets his highest mark, an average of 3.5 and a clear advantage over Mr Obama, for his position on free trade and globalisation. If Mr Obama “would wake up on free trade”, one respondent says, “I could get behind the plans much more.” Perhaps surprisingly, the economists rated trade low in priority compared with the other issues listed. Only 53% say it is important or very important. Neither candidate scored at all well on dealing with the burgeoning cost of entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security.

The economists also prefer Mr Obama’s tax plans. Republicans and respondents who do not identify with either political party see Mr McCain’s tax policies as more efficient but less equitable. But the former prefer Mr McCain’s plans—43% of Republicans say they are good or very good—and the latter Mr Obama’s. Of non-affiliated respondents, 31% say Mr Obama’s are good or very good.

Either way, according to the economists, it would be difficult to do much worse than George Bush. The respondents give Mr Bush a dismal average of 1.7 on our five-point scale for his economic management. Eighty-two per cent thought Mr Bush’s record was bad or very bad; only 1% thought it was very good.

The Democrats were overwhelmingly negative, but nearly every respondent viewed Mr Bush’s record unfavourably. Half of Republican respondents thought Mr Bush deserves only a 2. “The minimum rating of one severely overestimates the quality of Bush’s economic policies,” says one non-aligned economist.

This is the fourth presidential election in which The Economist has surveyed economists on the candidates and their plans. Responses, anonymous except where requested, were received between September 18th and 30th. For full results see article.

Copyright © 2008 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

DenverBrit · 10-05-2008, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS

The Economist's poll of economists

Examining the candidates
Oct 2nd 2008 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

Good article.

Obama it is.

Rohirrim · 10-05-2008, 11:17 AM

free trade; Noun; \ˈfrēˈtrād\; Ety: Mid.Eng. - c. 1655. Definition: Any exchange of goods where any (and every) country in the world is allowed to freely import goods to the United States without tariff, undercutting American markets, while the United States hemorrhages jobs and resources, suffers from massive trade deficits, loses its production capability and manufacturing base, and allows greedy corporate oligarchs to rob its wealth (hiding their plunder in tax-free, offshore accounts) while stuffing bribes into the pockets of American politicians who write more "free trade" legislation in exchange.
Synonyms: See rip-off, screw-the-pooch, screwed & tatooed, serfdom, hosed

W*GS · 10-05-2008, 11:26 AM

Is protectionism the "answer", Ro?

Rohirrim · 10-05-2008, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS

Is protectionism the "answer", Ro?

We should dump the phrase "free trade" from our political vocabulary and instead use, "fair trade."

Spider · 10-05-2008, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS

Is protectionism the "answer", Ro?

to an extent , but like anything else you can take it to far ......but we have never had a free market , never will , right now free trade costs us **** load of money and jobs ......... NAFTA works the way it is .......

W*GS · 10-05-2008, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

We should dump the phrase "free trade" from our political vocabulary and instead use, "fair trade."

Meaning what?

W*GS · 10-05-2008, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spider

to an extent , but like anything else you can take it to far ......but we have never had a free market , never will , right now free trade costs us **** load of money and jobs ......... NAFTA works the way it is .......

I realize it's an article of faith among protectionists that free trade is only a cost, but can you prove your assertions?

Spider · 10-05-2008, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS

I realize it's an article of faith among protectionists that free trade is only a cost, but can you prove your assertions?

whats our trade deficit ? how many Jobs went over seas ?
Next ............

W*GS · 10-05-2008, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spider

whats our trade deficit ? how many Jobs went over seas ? Next ............

You tell me, and show that those things are because of free trade.

Remember that chart that LABF tosses out showing job creation under Clinton?

How does that square with your perception that free trade costs jobs?

Spider · 10-05-2008, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS

You tell me, and show that those things are because of free trade.

Remember that chart that LABF tosses out showing job creation under Clinton?

How does that square with your perception that free trade costs jobs?

No you can look it up for yourself ....... get crackin

W*GS · 10-05-2008, 12:17 PM

You're not willing to prove your assertions. You're a faith-based believer.

Your argument isn't supported, therefore, you're not worthy of discussion.

Spider · 10-05-2008, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS

You're not willing to prove your assertions. You're a faith-based believer.

Your argument isn't supported, therefore, you're not worthy of discussion.

then move along ........ I am done trying to prove **** to you , all you do is play silly ass games deflect etc ........... I got a suggestion for you , if you want ot know look it up ......if not then dont ......

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 10-05-2008, 05:37 PM

Gee, does this mean W*GS has to change his avatar?

W*GS · 10-05-2008, 06:38 PM

That really bothers you, doesn't it?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 10-05-2008, 06:57 PM

kappys · 10-06-2008, 10:35 AM

We don't have free trade under these agreements Wags.

What you get is elimination of tariffs but governments continue to subsidize their goods - thereby preventing foreign competition.

W*GS · 10-06-2008, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kappys

We don't have free trade under these agreements Wags.

I know that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kappys

What you get is elimination of tariffs but governments continue to subsidize their goods - thereby preventing foreign competition.

Governments shouldn't subsidize, either.

kappys · 10-06-2008, 04:37 PM

i could conceivably get behind true free trade - I just don't think it will ever be allowed to happen.

10-05-2008, 10:05 AM	#1
W*GS Ring of Famer Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Earth Posts: 19,502	The Economist's poll of economists: Examining the candidates The Economist's poll of economists Examining the candidates Oct 2nd 2008 \| WASHINGTON, DC From The Economist print edition In our special report on the election we analyse the two candidates’ economic plans. Here, we ask professional economists to give us their views AS THE financial crisis pushes the economy back to the top of voters’ concerns, Barack Obama is starting to open up a clear lead over John McCain in the opinion polls. But among those who study economics for a living, Mr Obama’s lead is much more commanding. A survey of academic economists by The Economist finds the majority—at times by overwhelming margins—believe Mr Obama has the superior economic plan, a firmer grasp of economics and will appoint better economic advisers. Our survey is not, by any means, a scientific poll of all economists. We e-mailed a questionnaire to 683 research associates, all we could track down, of the National Bureau of Economic Research, America’s premier association of applied academic economists, though the NBER itself played no role in the survey. A total of 142 responded, of whom 46% identified themselves as Democrats, 10% as Republicans and 44% as neither. This skewed party breakdown may reflect academia’s Democratic tilt, or possibly Democrats’ greater propensity to respond. Still, even if we exclude respondents with a party identification, Mr Obama retains a strong edge—though the McCain campaign should be buoyed by the fact that 530 economists have signed a statement endorsing his plans. Does their opinion matter? Economics is just one of the many things the next president will have to worry about; voters still seem to prefer Mr McCain on foreign policy. And even on the economy, economists may not have the same priorities as the population at large. Arguably, what a president says about economics on the campaign trail is less important than how he responds to the unexpected challenges that inevitably arise once he is in office. Yet economists’ opinions should count for something because irrespective of any party affiliation, most of them approach policy decisions with the same basic tool kit. Their assessment of the candidates’ economic credentials and plans represents an informed judgment on how well they will handle difficult trade-offs between efficiency, equity, growth and consensus-building. Regardless of party affiliation, our respondents generally agree the economy is in bad shape, that the election is important to the course of economic policy and that the housing and financial crisis is the most critical economic issue facing America. The detailed responses are bad news for Mr McCain (the full data are available here). Eighty per cent of respondents and no fewer than 71% of those who do not cleave to either main party say Mr Obama has a better grasp of economics. Even among Republicans Mr Obama has the edge: 46% versus 23% say Mr Obama has the better grasp of the subject. “I take McCain’s word on this one,” comments James Harrigan at the University of Virginia, a reference to Mr McCain’s infamous confession that he does not know as much about economics as he should. In fairness, Mr McCain’s lower grade may in part reflect greater candour about his weaknesses. Mr Obama’s more tightly managed image leaves fewer opportunities for such unvarnished introspection. A candidate’s economic expertise may matter rather less if he surrounds himself with clever advisers. Unfortunately for Mr McCain, 81% of all respondents reckon Mr Obama is more likely to do that; among unaffiliated respondents, 71% say so. That is despite praise across party lines for the excellent Doug Holtz-Eakin, Mr McCain’s most prominent economic adviser and a former head of the Congressional Budget Office. “Although I have tended to vote Republican,” one reply says, “the Democrats have a deep pool of talented, moderate economists.” There is an apparent contradiction between most economists’ support for free trade, low taxes and less intervention in the market and the low marks many give to Mr McCain, who is generally more supportive of those things than Mr Obama. It probably reflects a perception that the Republican Party under George Bush has subverted many of those ideals for ideology and political gain. Indeed, the majority of respondents rate Mr Bush’s economic record as very bad, and Republican respondents are only slightly less critical. “John McCain has professed disdain for ‘so-called economists’, and for some the feeling has become mutual,” says Erik Brynjolfsson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management. “Obama’s team is mainstream and non-ideological but extremely talented.” On our one-to-five scale, economists on average give Mr Obama’s economic programme a 3.3 and Mr McCain’s a 2.2. Mr Obama, says Jonathan Parker, a non-aligned professor at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, “is a pragmatist not an ideologue. I expect Clintonian economic policies.” If, that is, crushing federal debt does not derail his taxing and spending plans. On his plans to fix the financial crisis, Mr Obama averages 3.1, a point higher than Mr McCain. Still, some said they didn’t quite know what they were rating—reasonably enough, since neither candidate has produced clear plans of his own. Where the candidates’ positions are more clearly articulated, Mr Obama scores better on nearly every issue: promoting fiscal discipline, energy policy, reducing the number of people without health insurance, controlling health-care costs, reforming financial regulation and boosting long-run economic growth. Twice as many economists think Mr McCain’s plan would be bad or very bad for long-run growth as Mr Obama’s. Given how much focus Mr McCain has put on his plan’s benefits for growth, this last is quite a repudiation. Mr McCain gets his highest mark, an average of 3.5 and a clear advantage over Mr Obama, for his position on free trade and globalisation. If Mr Obama “would wake up on free trade”, one respondent says, “I could get behind the plans much more.” Perhaps surprisingly, the economists rated trade low in priority compared with the other issues listed. Only 53% say it is important or very important. Neither candidate scored at all well on dealing with the burgeoning cost of entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security. The economists also prefer Mr Obama’s tax plans. Republicans and respondents who do not identify with either political party see Mr McCain’s tax policies as more efficient but less equitable. But the former prefer Mr McCain’s plans—43% of Republicans say they are good or very good—and the latter Mr Obama’s. Of non-affiliated respondents, 31% say Mr Obama’s are good or very good. Either way, according to the economists, it would be difficult to do much worse than George Bush. The respondents give Mr Bush a dismal average of 1.7 on our five-point scale for his economic management. Eighty-two per cent thought Mr Bush’s record was bad or very bad; only 1% thought it was very good. The Democrats were overwhelmingly negative, but nearly every respondent viewed Mr Bush’s record unfavourably. Half of Republican respondents thought Mr Bush deserves only a 2. “The minimum rating of one severely overestimates the quality of Bush’s economic policies,” says one non-aligned economist. This is the fourth presidential election in which The Economist has surveyed economists on the candidates and their plans. Responses, anonymous except where requested, were received between September 18th and 30th. For full results see article. Copyright © 2008 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-05-2008, 11:17 AM	#3
Rohirrim Partisan Human Cannonball Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater Posts: 48,792	free trade; Noun; \ˈfrēˈtrād\; Ety: Mid.Eng. - c. 1655. Definition: Any exchange of goods where any (and every) country in the world is allowed to freely import goods to the United States without tariff, undercutting American markets, while the United States hemorrhages jobs and resources, suffers from massive trade deficits, loses its production capability and manufacturing base, and allows greedy corporate oligarchs to rob its wealth (hiding their plunder in tax-free, offshore accounts) while stuffing bribes into the pockets of American politicians who write more "free trade" legislation in exchange. Synonyms: See rip-off, screw-the-pooch, screwed & tatooed, serfdom, hosed

10-05-2008, 11:26 AM	#4
W*GS Ring of Famer Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Earth Posts: 19,502	Is protectionism the "answer", Ro?

10-05-2008, 12:17 PM	#12
W*GS Ring of Famer Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Earth Posts: 19,502	You're not willing to prove your assertions. You're a faith-based believer. Your argument isn't supported, therefore, you're not worthy of discussion.

10-05-2008, 05:37 PM	#14
L.A. BRONCOS FAN Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location Posts: 52,694	Gee, does this mean W*GS has to change his avatar?

10-05-2008, 06:38 PM	#15
W*GS Ring of Famer Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Earth Posts: 19,502	That really bothers you, doesn't it?

10-05-2008, 06:57 PM	#16
L.A. BRONCOS FAN Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location Posts: 52,694

10-06-2008, 10:35 AM	#17
kappys Ring of Famer “It will be of little avail to the Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 3,900	We don't have free trade under these agreements Wags. What you get is elimination of tariffs but governments continue to subsidize their goods - thereby preventing foreign competition.

10-06-2008, 04:37 PM	#19
kappys Ring of Famer “It will be of little avail to the Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 3,900	i could conceivably get behind true free trade - I just don't think it will ever be allowed to happen.