Matthew Yglesias » Economists at War

Sep 22nd, 2008 at 7:11 pm

Economists at War

Here’s an interesting poll of American Economic Association economists and their view of the McCain-Obama matchup:

It’s no surprise to see general pro-Obama sentiment here, since people with advanced degrees are, on the whole, very solidly behind Obama. But still the variances from issue to issue are interesting. Most notable, to me, is that the economists rate “wars and homeland security” as one of Obama’s strongest issues, whereas the conventional wisdom and the bulk of the public sees this as McCain’s strong suit. It’s part of a larger trend I’ve noticed of economists, who appreciate the positive-sum nature of international relations, having generally sounder views on foreign policy than do “foreign policy experts,” who seem to me to tend in the direction of being captured by the military-industrial complex over time.

Comments
42

42 Responses to “Economists at War”

Jake Says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 7:18 pm
This is the sort of thing that keeps that nutjob David Horowitz employed with speaking gigs.
tokorode Says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 7:22 pm
too bad we never see these folks on the teevee. Only so much airtime since you gotta have the Kudlows and O’hanlons
Mike Says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 7:25 pm
You should definitely re-mention that this poll was conducted by Scott Adams. That’s the best part!
Harvey Lobster Says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 7:29 pm
I expect that economists support Obama’s stance on foreign policy because they are, by definition, intelligent and educated. Not saying that you *need* to be stupid and ignorant to support McCain’s foreign policy – but it sure helps.

Meanwhile, there are other issues on which intelligent, educated people can disagree – say, on whether McCain or Obama will more thoroughly wreck the budget.
kxf_in_dc Says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 7:30 pm
I actually took this poll. No clue it was from Dilbert’s creator, seemed very straightforward. Scott Adams wrote an article somewhere about the results, and I believe you can get the details from his website.
DTM Says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 7:49 pm
I think economists also recognize that Obama is pretty economics-literate for a politician, and in general reasonably pragmatic (an assessment supported by Obama’s time at Chicago and affiliations as a result).

Incidentally, I’m going to go out on a limb and say Obama’s gap on the international trade issue is actually helpful among the general electorate, although it happens to be one of the areas where I also disagree with Obama.
Andy McLennan Says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 8:07 pm
It’s part of a larger trend I’ve noticed of economists, who appreciate the positive-sum nature of international relations, having generally sounder views on foreign policy than do “foreign policy experts”

These days economists are very aware of game theory, while “foreign policy experts” tend to think of power as some sort of mystical pixie dust, so this is, perhaps, less surprising than it seems. But I’m an economist specializing in game theory, so you should take it with a grain of salt.
BarryG Says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Not that, as an economist, I disagree with the results of the poll — but was this poll limited to Americans? There are lots of great economists from abroad these days (I know, because I’ve tried to hire some) and non-Americans constitute another group that strongly pro-Obama and also pro-international engagement.
msmackle Says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Did anyone happen to notice that 35% of those polled thought there was no difference between Obama and McCain on the subject Social Security? It seems like if you had been following this debate closely, than the differences would become apparent, although the result would probably be that the breakdown would be along more partisan lines. And that economists are probably more-likely than most folks to favor some amount of partial-privatization. But both of those trends should push the No-Diff” numbers down even further. Instead we have 35% thinking that the Obama and McCain plans on Social Security are equivalent. Any ideas?
Andrew Fly Says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Since this first debate will be centered on foreign policy, Obama needs to highlight the fact that in the face of this $700 billion bailout, that we’ve spent $574 billion in Iraq and that the CBO says it will ultimately cost taxpayers $1.9 trillion. Coin that would help us out right about now.
wml Says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Most economists are Democrats. (Typical economist is right of typical academic, but that doesn’t say much. They are still left of the median voter in the general population)

Most Democrats think Obama is better than McCain on national security.

No need to assert some special enlightenment due to be economists.
DTM Says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 8:55 pm
msmackle,

From the linked article, apparently the economists were asked something like who would do the “best job” on the relevant issue. So I don’t think it is necessarily the case those 35% of economists all thought the candidates’ stated plans for Social Security were the same (for example, some of them might have thought that regardless of those plans, the outcome would be the same).
jamie Says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 9:28 pm
what do economists know about wars/education that gives them a special insight over other professions, like teachers or foreign policy experts?
Deborah Says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Why the hell is McCain ranked highly on international trade? Is that just a bone they felt they should throw him? I could see a 50-50 split with No Diff trouncing both.
ben j Says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 9:46 pm
I thought it was odd that environmental issues were so lopsided.
domino Says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:27 pm
As an economist I have a few thoughts on this too (I wasn’t polled in this).

First (and to answer Jamie), the reason most economists prefer Obama to McCain on security is because it seems clear that war is less likely under Obama. The reason is because McCain is very belligerent in his rhetoric. He would be more likely to position the US where it can’t avoid war, while Obama would position the US to reduce tensions. That’s good for over all welfare.

To answer Deborah, the reason most economists think Obama is not good on trade is because of the Ohio primary. We had a collective moment of nausea that week when Obama was trash talking NAFTA. He also talks up blue collar anger against China. Economists almost all think sending jobs to China is progress. The best way to deal with the cost of that is to help people who lose their jobs to find new ones. Not to stop them losing their jobs. McCain has a long reputation of supporting free trade.

But I think economists are wrong to think Obama would not be good on trade. He’s much more of a globalist, and much less of an American exceptionalist. I think the WTO would make more progress under him than McCain. And since he’d give us less wars, that’s good for trade too. And the US/China relationship would undoubtedly be better under Obama, and that is absolutely critical to international trade.

Jagdish Bhagwati (the world’s foremost trade economist) is on record saying Obama would be better for trade. His reasoning is that a Dem congress just wouldn’t offer McCain anything to go with, but they’d give Obama fast track and let him carry on free trading. Bhagwati basically feels Obama would be less ambitious on trade, but more successful.

Reducing waste in government goes to McCain just because he’s republican. Obama would find it harder to say no to things a Democratic congress put in front of him.
Ed Marshall Says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:02 pm
We had a collective moment of nausea that week when Obama was trash talking NAFTA.

Really? I thought the basic consensus was neo-classical microeconomics blended with a Keynesian macro-economic thought. That’s not what jumps out at me when I think of NAFTA. I could be totally wrong, but that was my view of the state of orthodox economics as it exists in the U.S.A. Am I wrong, on the state of orthodoxy or does NAFTA comply with this in some way I’m not understanding.
Njorl Says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Did anyone happen to notice that 35% of those polled thought there was no difference between Obama and McCain on the subject Social Security?

It may be a matter of the polled people thinking through to effective policy. I imagine that most of them assume McCain would be powerless to do what he really wants with Social security, hence, no difference.
domino Says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Ed,

My comment re: NAFTA wasn’t so much a comment on how good or not NAFTA is. More that the idea that what Obama and Clinton were saying sounded very close to undermining trust in any trade agreement with the US.

Personally, I think most trade agreements are useful only in a political sense, and do pretty much nothing for trade, but even then, the rhetoric was making insiders around the world very nervous about their deals with the US gov.

I don’t have any special comments on the quality of NAFTA as an agreement one way or another, I should’ve made that explicit.
too many steves Says:
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:24 am
Deborah, McCain is actually quite good on trade (if you’re a free trader, that is). This is from a recent column by Matt Welch, author of the best book about McCain:

If you pore over John McCain’s five books (each co-written by longtime aide and alter ego Mark Salter) you will see very little in the way of political philosophy and even less having to do with economic ideas. A notable and timely exception to that is free trade, where McCain for decades has been anti-protectionist and pro just about every trade agreement imaginable. Considering that Democrats have all but killed off their 1990s support for trade agreements, and are being rewarded by increased majorities in Congress, having a principled free-trader in the White House is one of the last best hopes that the single easiest anti-poverty program ever invented can continue and expand.

Here’s the link
Kevin Narizny Says:
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:02 am
I wish Matt would be a little more specific with his tarring of “foreign policy experts.” Academics in international relations were overwhelmingly against the war from the very beginning. The op-ed advertisement taken out in the NY Times in September 2002, sponsored by John Mearsheimer, Steve Walt, and many of the most prominent names in the field, is representative (http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/P0012.pdf).

Matt’s “foreign policy experts,” in contrast, are a small number of liberal hawks and neocons who work for think tanks and therefore have incentives to keep their names in the press. They may be highly visible, but they’re hardly representative of foreign policy expertise in this country.
Tyro Says:
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:29 am
I wish Matt would be a little more specific with his tarring of “foreign policy experts.”

He means “experts in DC.” Which doesn’t mean they actually know anything.

DC has a large number of self-styled “experts” in any number of fields. This is not to say that they are actual experts, who are generally toiling away carrying on research studies and are too busy to market themselves to the DC press release/think tank crowd.
El Cid Says:
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:04 am
Al Qa’ida, or Al Qa’ida in Iraq, may have received a SURGE of U.S. cash.

$13 Billion in Iraq Aid Wasted Or Stolen, Ex-Investigator Says
By Dana Hedgpeth
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 23, 2008; Page A19

A former Iraqi official estimated yesterday that more than $13 billion meant for reconstruction projects in Iraq was wasted or stolen through elaborate fraud schemes.

Salam Adhoob, a former chief investigator for Iraq’s Commission on Public Integrity, told the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, an arm of the Democratic caucus, that an Iraqi auditing bureau “could not properly account for” the money…

…Adhoob said some of the investigations conducted by his agency and others uncovered “ghost projects” that never existed or instances in which Iraqi and U.S. contractors did poor-quality work. In one case, $24.4 million was spent on an electricity project in Nineveh province but an oversight agency found that it “existed only on paper.”

Investigations by Iraqi oversight agencies also found that some of the money sent to the Defense Ministry was diverted to al-Qaeda in Iraq, Adhoob said, and deposited into banks in Jordan and elsewhere.
El Cid Says:
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:05 am
Sorry. Here’s article link. H/T Juan Cole.
Richard Steven Hack Says:
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:17 am
Yeah, right, Matt, here’s the “big difference” between Obama and McCain.

Seen one dumb crooked bastard, you’ve seen them all.

Here’s two.

Obama, McCain: Military option in Iran relevant
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3600171,00.html

Money Quotes:

Democratic candidate Obama promised to examine every option, “including military, to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” while his Republican rival McCain spoke about the possibility of a preemptive war against Iran.

Obama was asked whether a nuclear-armed Iran was a direct threat to the US. His answer was direct and clear: “Yes. I think that a nuclear armed Iran is not just a threat to us, it’s a threat to Israel. And it is a game changer in the region. It’s unacceptable. And that’s why I’ve said that I won’t take any options off the table, including military, to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

He went on to criticize the Bush administration for wasting eight years instead of handling the Iranian issues.

“I do think that it is important for us to use all the arrows in our quiver. And we have not applied the kind of tough diplomacy over the last eight years that I think could have made a difference,” he said.

McCain was asked if his administration’s policy would be to engage in preemptive war against a country that might pose a threat to the US but that hasn’t attacked it. He responded that he would command a preemptive attack “if it’s a provable direct threat, bringing Iran as an example.

“Suppose that the Iranians had nuclear weapons. And you had a whole lot of other information about Iranian intentions and you could make the case to the American people and to the world, I think it’s obvious that we would have to prevent what we’re absolutely certain is a direct threat to the lives of the American people,” he said.

To reiterate the most salient point here: Iran does NOT HAVE a nuclear weapons program, and most likely never did.

Meanwhile, the rhetoric continues:

Make Stuff Up, Bomb Iran
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/21/make-stuff-up-bomb-iran/

Caroline Glick, deputy editor at Murdoch’s Jerusalem Post and fellow of the neoconservative Center For Security Policy, is back on the Iran warpath in an article she entitles “It is time to act“. She writes that “Iran is just a heartbeat away from the A-bomb”, and to justify this claim she begins with three untruths.

Firstly:

Last Friday the Daily Telegraph reported Teheran has surreptitiously removed a sufficient amount of uranium from its nuclear production facility in Isfahan to produce six nuclear bombs. Given Iran’s already acknowledged uranium enrichment capabilities, the Telegraph’s report indicates that the Islamic Republic is now in the late stages of assembling nuclear bombs.

But the IAEA has already told the Telegraph that it’s report, written by another neoconservative, Con Coughlin, is in error.

“The article, entitled ‘Iran renews nuclear weapons development’ published in [Friday’s] Daily Telegraph by Con Coughlin and Tim Butcher is fictitious,” IAEA Spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said in a statement.

“IAEA inspectors have no indication that any nuclear material is missing from the plant,” reads the statement.

Indeed, the IAEA guareantees that no uranium has been diverted to non-civilian programs or even can be without the Agency’s knowledge.

Then, she says that “US spy satellites recently discovered what the US believes are covert nuclear facilities in Iran.” Again – no. What was revealed (back in February) was an until-now unknown missile testing facility, revealed by commercial satellites rather than US ones. Whatever else it is it isn’t a “nuclear facility”. If it or any other more recent “finds” were, then the IAEA would be making a stink about it in their recent report, and they don’t. Iran had enough problems putting together the Nanantz cascades and getting them to run. The notion that they might have been able to develop some other secret facility just as big is James Bond fantasy stuff – those “reporting” such fantasies, often sourced from the utterly-nutterly MeK, might as well photo-shop a white persian cat onto file pictures of Ahmadinejhad and claim it proves something.

Then, Glick writes:

As to the IAEA, this week it presented its latest report on Teheran’s nuclear program to its board members in Vienna. The IAEA’s report claimed that Iran has taken steps to enable its Shihab-3 ballistic missiles to carry nuclear warheads.

Of course, she neglects to mention that any such work ended in 2003 according to US intelligence, that neither US spies nor the IAEA have seen any indications of it resuming and that in any case experts say the modifications wouldn’t have worked as there still wouldn’t be enough room in such a missile for the kind of nuke that Iran could build. The IAEA report makes it clear that the Agency just wants to clear up the details of the old Iranian program, for completeness’ sake.

It’s all a bit desperate. Glick says that these three factoids are why Israel should bomb Iran, because sanctions cannot stop these steps towards an imminent Iranian nuke. But they don’t need to – none of these steps exist. All this because the recent IAEA report gave the warmongers no ammunition at all, so they’re reduced to making things up.

It’s because of warmongers like Glick and Coughlin, willing to bend the ttruth all out of shape, that senior US military officers are giving off-the-record briefings to reporters trying to calm things down.

An Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear installations would destabilise the entire region and open a new battlefront which could have a damaging effect on Iraq and Afghanistan, a senior American army commander said today.

In a highly unusual statement on the issue from the US Defence establishment the officer, who requested anonymity, stressed that a diplomatic solution was imperative to solve the crisis.

The commander, in the heart of US military policy-making, said that there was “a lot of rhetoric” over Israel’s repeated threats to carry out air-strikes to stop Iran developing a nuclear arsenal.

However, he said, that an exercise by over 100 Israeli war planes in the skies above the Mediterranean in June showed the Israelis were practising for a possible offensive.

“But it would not be the right thing to do, it will open up another front and this is not going to help the situation in the region, Iraq or Afghanistan,” said the officer. “A diplomatic solution is the only logical answer to this.”

Recently, Shimon Peres said pretty much the same thing. As long ago as last year, so did IAEA head Mohammed El Baradei.

And analysts also acknowledge that hardliners rhetoric has meant Ahmadinejhad of Iran has managed to consolidate his position instead of being brought down by his incompetent handling of their economy.

People like Glick should be consigned to the wilderness, they simply are too dangerous to be given a bully pulpit like the Jerusalem Post.

How about George Bush? How about John McCain? How about Barack Obama? THEY ALL BELIEVE THE SAME THING ABOUT IRAN! And one of the last two is going to be the NEXT President!
Richard Steven Hack Says:
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:20 am
Meanwhile, the bomb explosion in Pakistan has raised questions about the US presence in the Marriott Hotel:

Guy in the comments makes this excellent point:

“Tell me, why aren’t vehicle bombs going off in Syria and Iran?

Because they don’t have a contingent of MOSSAD and CIA personnel roaming about the country?”

Actually Iran does have bombs going off – so does Syria. And yes, those bombs are caused by the US and Israel – that’s a known fact. Read Seymour Hersh’s articles on that.

As for the boxes referenced below – probably bribe money for Pakistani officials.

What Was Mysterious Activity Going on in the Marriott Hotel Islamabad by United States Marines
http://www.daily.pk/politics/politicalnews/7422-what-was-mysterious-activity-going-on-in-the-marriott-hotel-islamabad-by-united-states-marines.html

Marriott Hotel has now become a ghost house which was yesterday the most beautiful and prestigious hotels in the Islamabad. While the condemnation of the blasts and the deaths and the loss of property is going on from all the quarters, some intriguing news is also pouring in.

After the blast, mysteriously fire was started at the fourth and fifth floors. It was said that this fire was the result of gas pipeline burst running through the hotel. The million dollar question is that was the gas pipeline not running through the other floors? Why the fire broke out from the fourth and fifth flours? That is the question which perhaps holds the key to the mystery as why the hotel was targeted yesterday, in which more than 60 people died including many foreigners.

Though it would never get confirmed but the fire on the fifth and fourth floor of the hotel broke out because those flours were housing the mysterious steel boxes under the heavy guard of United States marines and no one including the Pakistani security forces and the security men of the hotel were allowed to go near with the them. These boxes were shifted inside the hotel when the Admiral Mike Mullen met Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and others in Islamabad.

It is said that one member of parliament Mumtaz Alam who belongs to the PPP, the ruling party was there eye witnessed the whole scene when the white truck of US embassy came to the gate of Marriot Hotel and US marines themselves unloaded the steel boxes from the trucks and shifted them to the fourth and fifth floors without passing through them the scanners at the entrance of the hotels. When the truck was there, all the entrance and the exit passage way to the hotels were closed.

And now this blast has occurred at the Marriott, while that mysterious activity was going on.

Was it an attack on US Marines?
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=17401

ISLAMABAD: Was there a top secret and mysterious operation of the US Marines going on inside the Marriott when it was attacked on Saturday evening? No one will confirm it but circumstantial evidence is in abundance.

Witnessed by many, including a PPP MNA and his friends, a US embassy truckload of steel boxes was unloaded and shifted inside the Marriott Hotel on the same night when Admiral Mike Mullen met Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and others in Islamabad.

Both the main gates (the entrance and the exit) of the hotel were closed while no one except the US Marines were either allowed to go near the truck or get the steel boxes unloaded or shift them inside the hotel. These steel boxes were not passed through the scanners installed at the entrance of the hotel lobby and were reportedly shifted to the fourth and fifth floors of the Marriott.

Besides several others, PPP MNA Mumtaz Alam Gilani and his two friends, Sajjad Chaudhry, a PPP leader, and one Bashir Nadeem, witnessed this mysterious activity to which no one other than the PPP MNA objected and protested.

A source present there told The News that after entertaining them with refreshments at the Nadia restaurant at midnight when Mumtaz Alam, along with his friends, was to leave the hotel, he found a white US embassy truck standing right in front of the hotel’s main entrance.

Both the In-gate and the Out-gate of the hotel were closed while almost a dozen well-built US Marines in their usual fatigues were unloading the steel boxes from the truck. No one, including the hotel security men, was either allowed to go near the truck or touch the steel boxes, which were being shifted inside the hotel but without passing through the scanners.

Upon inquiry, one of the three PPP friends who was waiting for the main gates of the hotel to open to get his car in, was informed that the suspicious boxes were shifted to the fourth and fifth floors of the hotel. Mumtaz Alam was furious both at the US Marines and the hotel security not only for the delay caused to them but also for the security lapse he was witnessing.

On his protest, there was absolutely no response from the Marines and the security men he approached were found helpless. Mumtaz Alam told the hotel security official that they were going to endanger the hotel and its security. He was also heard telling his friends that he would never visit the hotel again. He also threatened to raise the issue in parliament.

One does not know whether the PPP MNA revisited the hotel after that mysterious midnight but his brother Imtiaz Alam, who is a senior journalist, was in the same hotel when the truck exploded at the main gate of the hotel. Imtiaz Alam had a lucky escape and found his way out of the hotel with great difficulty in pitch darkness.

One of the lifts he was using fell to the ground floor just after he forced the door open on the 4th floor and got out of it.
Richard Steven Hack Says:
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:22 am
Of course, we’ll find out – much later – that a couple of Marines died “in Iraq” or “in Afghanistan” on just that same day…

Meanwhile, a brand new “terrorist group” – read “CIA and/or Mossad” – claimed responsibility.

Major among dead in Pakistan hotel blast
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/09/airforce_americans_killed_pakistan_092208w/

Money Quotes:

At least two U.S. troops died in Sunday’s suicide bombing at a luxury Pakistani hotel popular with foreigners. One of the dead is an Air Force officer; the other has yet to be identified.

The deaths caused confusion as scores of news agencies reported Monday that the two dead were Marines. Some publications reported the bombing was targeting Marines.

Air Force Maj. Rodolfo I. Rodriquez, 34, of El Paso, Texas, died Sept. 20 in Islamabad from injuries sustained in an improvised explosive device attack, according to the Defense Department. Rodriguez served with the 86th Construction and Training Squadron based out of Ramstein Air Base, Germany.

“He was in the area assisting with the training of Pakistani forces,” said Ramstein spokesman Aaron Schoenfeld.

Schoenfeld said at least one other service member died in the attack, but he was unsure what branch of service that person served in. The Corps, however, says no Marines died in the blast.

“We read the same thing first thing today and checked on it. It’s incorrect,” Marine Corps spokesman Capt. Carl Redding said. “There were no Marines killed or injured in connection with the attack in Islamabad this weekend.”

Heretofore Unheard of Group Claims Credit for Islamabad Blast
http://news.antiwar.com/2008/09/22/heretofore-unheard-of-group-claims-credit-for-islamabad-blast/

Posted September 22, 2008

A group calling itself Fedayeen Islam has claimed credit for Saturday’s attack on the Islamabad Marriott Hotel.

Though the authenticity of the claim could not be verified, Al-Arabiya television reported a correspondent received a text message containing a phone number. When the number was called a recorded message took credit for the blast. The voice reportedly had a South Asian accent.

After the call, the station also received a video recording from the faction. Though the video itself is being kept confidential, the station said the recording claimed there were 250 US marines and several NATO officials at the hotel. The recording also reportedly issued several demands to Pakistan’s government, including demanding a halt to cooperation with the United States.

There appears to be no history of any organization with this name operating in Pakistan, and its unclear what positions they hold, where they are based, or whether they are related to any other of the myriad of militant organizations operating in Pakistan. There was, however, an Iranian militant faction using the same name operating in the mid-20th century. Whether this provides some clue as to the group’s leanings or is merely a coincidence is unclear, but updates will come as they are made available.
Richard Steven Hack Says:
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:24 am
Can you say “false flag operation to pressure the Pakistanis to allow US troops into Pakistan to chase down bin Laden and get McCain elected?” Or worse, to destabilize Pakistan further, thus turning it into a major war zone?

I knew you could.

Can you say “Now that the Iraq war is winding down because Maliki and Iran are kicking the US out, where are the fat military-industrial complex contracts and support for their stock prices going to come from if not Afghanistan and Pakistan?”

I knew you could.

Suckers.
bdbd Says:
September 23rd, 2008 at 8:45 am
here’s economists not so much at war, re the bailout provisions

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/23skeptics.html?hp
slackermom Says:
September 23rd, 2008 at 10:48 am
Well, I don’t have any stats to add to this discussion, but lots of anecdotes–I know a number of economists who were neutral back in 2000, with the “it doesn’t matter who gets elected, Bush or Gore, they’re almost the same” who have since decided it actually did matter quite a lot and are now avidly supporting Obama. Things like forcing serious economists, in, say, Treasury, to write stuff about how great the Bush tax cuts were, pushed thinking people to consider the Bushies a fairly corrupt lot, not to mention all the later issues that made this point clear.
For a good, brief summary of some game theory/foreign policy, check out economists for obama-an independent group of likeminded economists
nhttp://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/08/mcgame-theory.html
Colatina Says:
September 23rd, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Leave aside from the humor in the fact that raising taxes on the wealthy is listed as an “issue” or standard policy goal rather than a controversial position. It’s even more curious that McCain, being probably as environmentalist as a GOP nominee can get, and yet economists are more certain that Obama’s better on the environment than McCain than they are that Obama is more likely to raise taxes on the wealthy.

I agree what’s been said above about foreign policy experts. If you polled professors of international relations, they’d be at least at favorable to Obama’s foreign policy econ profs are, even though there are more hawks among IR people than among the academic population as a whole. That’s the comparison group, not the O’Hanlons and Kagans of the world.

“Reducing waste in government goes to McCain just because he’s republican. Obama would find it harder to say no to things a Democratic congress put in front of him.”

Unless the waste in government has something to do with foreign wars or massive financial bailouts. Then McCain would probably go along with it. But I heard those two things don’t count as spending.
Ben Says:
September 23rd, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Hack makes it through with the nuttery!
levitra Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:27 am
levitraVery interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
viagra Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 6:29 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
zyban Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 2:26 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
xanax Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 7:37 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
xanax
tramadol Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:00 am
tramadol
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
brand viagra Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 7:25 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra
viagra cheap Says:
April 14th, 2009 at 10:33 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
viagra
Palagi Says:
April 19th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Outstanding post and blog…..I’m very impressed with all the usefull information here! Copy N Profit
Dewilde Says:
April 19th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Outstanding post and blog…..I’m very impressed with all the usefull information here! Copy N Profit
Vilchis Says:
April 20th, 2009 at 12:49 am
Idk whether to laugh or cry…

Matt Yglesias

Economists at War

42 Responses to “Economists at War”

Blogroll