More than 500 economists, 5 Nobel laureates back Romney’s economic strategy

More than 500 economists, 5 Nobel laureates back Romney’s economic strategy

3:22 PM 08/20/2012


More than 500 economists — including five Nobel laureates — have endorsed Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s economic plan as the right choice for jobs creation and economic growth.

The pro-Romney group “Economists for Romney” announced Monday that its statement of support for the former Massachusetts governor’s economic plan now has 526 signatories, up from 400 a week ago.

“We enthusiastically endorse Governor Mitt Romney’s economic plan to create jobs and restore economic growth while returning America to its tradition of economic freedom,” Economists for Romney’s statement of support reads, proclaiming Romney’s plan as based on “proven principles” to restrain the federal government and expand opportunities in the private sector.

The 526 economists — including Nobel laureates Gary Becker, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, Edward Prescott, and Myron Scholes — point to six facets of Romney’s economic approach that they see as beneficial to future economic success.

Reduce marginal tax rates on business and wage incomes and broaden the tax base to increase investment, jobs, and living standards.
End the exploding federal debt by controlling the growth of spending so federal spending does not exceed 20 percent of the economy.
Restructure regulation to end “too big to fail,” improve credit availability to entrepreneurs and small businesses, and increase regulatory accountability, and ensure that all regulations pass rigorous benefit-cost tests.
Improve our Social Security and Medicare programs by reducing their growth to sustainable levels, ensuring their viability over the long term, and protecting those in or near retirement.
Reform our healthcare system to harness market forces and thereby reduce costs and increase quality, empowering patients and doctors, rather than the federal bureaucracy.
Promote energy policies that increase domestic production, enlarge the use of all western hemisphere resources, encourage the use of new technologies, end wasteful subsidies, and rely more on market forces and less on government planners.

Seven of the signatories are from Harvard University and five from Columbia University — two of President Barack Obama’s alma maters.

The economists’ statement of support pillories Obama’s economic record, claiming that his expansion of the federal government has resulted in “anemic economic recovery and high unemployment,” which will continue if his future plans are implemented.

Among the Obama policies with which the 526 economists take issue include:

Relied on short-term “stimulus” programs, which provided little sustainable lift to the economy, and enacted and proposed significant tax increases for all Americans.
Offered no plan to reduce federal spending and stop the growth of the debt-to-GDP ratio.
Failed to propose Social Security reform and offered a Medicare proposal that relies on a panel of bureaucrats to set prices, quantities, and qualities of healthcare services.
Favored a large expansion of economic regulation across many sectors, with little regard for proper cost-benefit analysis and with a disturbing degree of favoritism toward special interests.
Enacted health care legislation that centralizes health care decisions and increases the power of the federal bureaucracy to impose one-size-fits-all solutions on patients and doctors, and creates greater incentives for waste.
Favored expansion of one-size-fits-all federal rulemaking, with an erosion of the ability of state and local governments to make decisions appropriate for their particular circumstances.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/20/m...back-romneys-economic-strategy/#ixzz24DAvOKcn

 

Too bad they'll get trumped by "100 Million Parasites for Odumbo."

 

No liberals are going to comment on this thread. They keep the really shitty threads alive and kill off the ones with information. They are trashy people like Union organizers going after scabs with baseball bats. They are not looking for a debate with an exchange of facts....

I love to screw over people with lefty bumper stickers. I ruined one's illegal income and used an attorney to get some money out of her. I felt justified since she wants to use the public sector to get money out of me. Why exchange information when you can get an attorney after one of these agressively mindless losers?

'sides, who's worried about the election? The incumbent usually has an automatic ten point advantage, this current loser is running behind in the polls and starting off with the attack ads. Attack ads are ad hominems and ad hominems are reserved for when you don't have a leg to stand on.

It's Jimmy Carter's second term! Can't wait for it's end so we can get back to reality. Maybe BO can retire and write a couple dozen books like Jimmy Carter did, all about what a great POTUS he was...

 

The first name on that list is Gary Becker and the Nobel Laureate Gary Becker Says U.S. Doesn't Need Manufacturing - and China Agrees!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnf...does-not-need-manufacturing-and-china-agrees/

 

At least union people actually work. I know they are doing the bare minimum but its better than the rest of the Obama supporters that are sucking the government's nipple.

Obama's supporters don't care about debate because the majority of them don't pay taxes and they dont care about the deficit because they are not the ones who will have to pay for it.

 

its about time more people got involved in this. its been too easy for the media to marginalize the tea party.

 

Certainly a provocative, sensationalistic headline from Eamonn Fingleton. But where in the actual essay does Gary Becker suggest that the U.S. doesn't need manufacturing? I've read this a few times, it's getting late so I may have missed it but I see no such suggestion.

http://english.caixin.com/2012-04-24/100383805.html

 

"None of the steps to improve the economy involve favoring manufacturing employment and the manufacturing sector. The call by many for special treatment of manufacturing jobs is basically misguided."
Gary Becker is a professor at the University of Chicago and a Nobel Laureate

 

We made the transition from farming to manufacturing and now we're making another transition from manufacturing to...what? None of these economic geniuses address that. What do you do with all these poeple while the next great new thing unveils itself? A nation of paper pushers and service workers will not be very prosperous.

 

"Instead of singling out manufacturing for special privileges, the U.S. government should get behind certain general policies. High on the list would be raising the rate of growth of the American economy, for this will tend to create jobs in most sectors of the economy. More government support may be justified for basic research in science and other areas that would also benefit all sectors, not just manufacturing."

In fact what he's suggesting are policies that benefit all sectors, not only manufacturing.

So I must ask again please show me where he states that the U.S. doesn't need manufacturing.