Economists for Romney

 

Adam Smith,
one of the earliest and greatest of all economists

 

I realize that sheer lists of endorsing authorities don’t prove a position correct — plainly, an impressive list of big-name contemporary scholars could have been assembled to counter Galileo, Copernicus, Pasteur, and Darwin — but, surely, such lists do suggest that the positions they endorse need to be taken seriously.

 

I regularly encounter claims that Mitt Romney’s economic policy proposals are just plain nuts, not intellectually respectable, that they merely pander to special interests and the rich and are, accordingly, unworthy of real consideration.

 

But this “enthusiastic” endorsement of his positions (and critique of Obama’s) by four hundred very respectable independent economists — among them at least one former Secretary of the Treasury, several past chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisors, and five Nobel Laureates — does suggest that Governor Romney’s position is not to be lightly dismissed:

 

http://economistsforromney.com/

 

I hope that it will receive wide notice.

 

 

Print Friendly

  • Elizabeth W

    I didn’t realize that Adam Smith was that explosive a fellow.

  • Fred Kratz

    In the mid 1990′s, Brooksley Born, the head of the CFTC, sought to regulate the over the counter derivatives markets which she believed were a looming threat to world financial markets. She appeared in congressional hearings four times where she was ever lambasted by members of Clinton’s working group (Alan Greenspan, Larry Summers, and Robert Rubin) who demanded that the derivatives market remain unregulated under their Ayn Rand style neoliberal/neoconservative policies.

    Then in 1998, the infamous near collapse of Long Term Capital Management occurred as it had leveraged 5 billion of investor capital, to over a trillion dollars using complex financial instruments. This collapse sent shock waves through the financial markets as the entire U.S. economy hung in the balance. Myron Sholes, the Nobel Laureate economist, was one of the founders of LTCM. After its bailout, Brooksley Born was relieved of her position at the CFTC. Unregulated “dark derivatives markets” permeated world banking for the next decade where in 2007, they had grown to over 590 trillion dollars. And as Brooksley Born had predicted a decade earlier, all that would be required would be the failure of one financial institution to begin the dominoes falling. We all know what eventuated. And where were the eminent Nobel Laureate economists then? Where was the warning?

    I’m still amazed at Alan Greenspan’s congressional testimony where he admitted that the world financial model he was operating under for 2 decades as Chairman of the Federal Reserve was flawed. I also remember how powerful he had become as the financial markets hung on his every word. He was the nation’s foremost economist who knew the mind of Ayn Rand and yet was clueless as to the dangers which existed in complex derivatives markets he so willingly protected.

    I’m not sure, given our last financial crisis, how much one should be willing to listen to economists (most of who totally missed the signs of the housing and financial disaster), especially those who lobby for a decrease in financial regulation and the weakening of Dodd/Frank.

  • http://joelsmonastery.blogspot.com Gerald Smith

    Part of the problem is those economists did not fully enjoin Ayn Rand. They sought freedom to pursue risky investments, but in league with government(s), had a backup system to bail them out as “too big to fail.” Had a fully incorporated free market been established, the markets would have realized they had major risks to manage for themselves, and would not have leveraged themselves in such a way. For the few who did, they would no longer exist, and so would no longer be a problem. That we insisted on bailing them out, and having that promise given long ago, meant that the markets were twisted, no longer free markets. They were doomed to fail.

    Returning to fiscally sound principles, such as balanced budgets, helping small business, etc., makes eminently more sense that spending trillions of money on temporary stimulus that has not stimulated any long term growth, except at a big long term cost. And a bigger risk, as we now portend the bankruptcy of major federal programs, as well.

  • Kent G. Budge

    “Too big to fail”: smacks of the same basic attitude that characterized the mercantilism Adam Smith denounced.

  • christine

    i am no economist but making money from the Salt Lake City olympics convinces me


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X