(11-24-2017 05:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-24-2017 04:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:In a new poll from the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, 38 economists from schools including Yale, MIT and the University of California-Berkeley weighed in on contentious points about the GOP tax plans.

On one question, the economists were asked whether enacting "a tax bill similar to those currently moving through the House and Senate" would lead to a "substantially higher" rate of economic growth a decade from now than it would otherwise.

Only two percent — or, 1 out of 38 economists — agreed. 36 percent were uncertain, 33 percent disagreed, and another 19 percent strongly disagreed. (The remainder did not answer.)

That one economist who agreed also didn't do so without reservations: while a lower corporate tax rate would likely grow the economy, he wrote, he also said it was "another matter" whether the plan is "fair" in how it spreads the benefits of tax cuts. A recent analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, for example, shows the senate proposal disproportionately benefiting some of the richest Americans.

Economists were much more certain about what the tax bills would do to the debt. They were asked whether a tax bill like those in the House and Senate right now would leave the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio (a common measure of how large the national debt is) "substantially higher" in a decade than otherwise.

On this, fully 43 percent agreed that it would leave the debt level higher, and another 45 percent strongly agreed. Only 1 economist was uncertain. None disagreed.

But there's a catch here, yet again with the one economist who stood alone. That economist, Stanford's Liran Einav, told the Washington Post that he "didn't read the question properly" and in fact agreed with his peers.

Poll: Economists Unanimous That Debt Would Balloon Under GOP Tax Plan

Hint to the author of the article.... If you don't think an economic stimulus plan is going to grow the economy.... which most of these guys think it wouldn't, then OF COURSE they're going to say it's going to grow the debt/GDP. Those two things go hand in hand. Presenting them as if it's an addition is misleading at best.

Another point that is misleading is that the bar for agreement is set at 'substantially higher a decade from now'. One could obviously think that it will improve the economy in the short term, but not the long.... or that it would improve the economy, but not 'substantially' and still decide 'no'. One also assumes that no other taxation or changes would take place over the next ten years... which is silly


So really, all this says is that if we do this and only this, these guys think we're going to be in worse shape in 10 years than we are now.

I can't think of one single republican who disagrees.

Now, choosing a few of thousands of possibilities and options (from the right alone) that nobody on this forum is qualified to address and even those 38 economists would give you 38 different opinions, if you do this to stimulate the economy thus allowing us to cut back on the social safety net and the bureaucracies that support it allowing us to cut public support spending... and if the demand for labor encouraged some 60-65 yr olds to continue to work somewhat and delay retirement (by choice) and ESPECIALLY if we're able to pass a VAT or other consumption tax, then they'd likely reach very different conclusions.

The bigger question is why it's 38 and not 500? Why these 38? Why all (it seems) in academia? Why were industry economists (whose ability to project such things is how they make a living, as opposed to merely teaching the various methods of doing so) seemingly excluded and does the number change if they are included?

I suspect the reason these were selected is that this is a purely academic exercise. Industry economists would insist they could make assumptions about what such things would lead to... like I described.... which this poll specifically excluded.

That's how you know it's crap. NOTHING happens in a vacuum

Bravo.

This sounds, smells, reeks of a CBO style “analysis”.

Let me see, looking at this proposal as it stands now would do x,y and potentially z.

Uhhhhh, hey boss? Some guy back East, Fed Wonk guy, invented this thing called “e-mail” and they’re trying to tie it into something theyre calling the “World-Wide Web”.

Does that change any of this?

Nah, why would it? People still gotta drive to the store to buy records, or pay their Quarter to make that phone call, right?!?

Group: Har, har, har! Good point boss!


So much complete garbage.

Economists, and to the prior post weather describers, are better suited to trying to ‘splain WTF just happened, how and bigger-why?

Not making predictions for 2027 when they can’t agree on whether FDR’s approach worked well, or the Kennedy model was more successful.

The pointy-heads are still writing books on both... IOW’s, more useless, nauseating akademick navel gazing.

But!, thanks for posting! OP.