08-22-2012, 05:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/20/more-t.../#ixzz24GuZpLgo (http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/20/more-than-500-economists-5-nobel-laureates-back-romneys-economic-strategy/#ixzz24GuZpLgo)</div></div>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>INFIDELS! (http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/20/more-than-500-economists-5-nobel-laureates-back-romneys-economic-strategy/)</span>

08-22-2012, 08:43 AM
Approx 3/4 of krappynomicysts vote democrat.
Zero krappynomicysts hav ever got a Nobel Prize.

08-22-2012, 09:15 AM
This is only an argument by appeal to authority. There really is no authority in the economic profession, Nobel Prizes or not.

Mr. Sholes, for example, came up with the pricing model everyone uses now to value futures contracts. And went spectacularly broke in said futures market related hedge fund investing, where his evident expertise amounted to about exactly the wrong thing. That little hedge fund he created took on so much leveraged debt that its failure briefly threatened the stabilization of the entire market, until the Fed arranged a bailout that required a consortium of Wall Street firms to have enough money to finance it.

These people can only be approving an OUTLINE, without details, in any case. If the undisclosed details would result in what Romney says they would, it would indeed be a fine plan. As the devil is in the details, however, none of these guys can possibly know if it will work or is a good or bad plan.

What has been scored, with as little as can be scored (even Ryan hasn't 'run the numbers,' he admits, because they CANNOT be run without these details), is Romney's claim that despite a $7 trillion dollar 10-year reduction in revenues from his tax rate reduction (on top of the $5 trillion in kept Bush tax rate cuts, = $12 trillion in lost revenues), somehow it will be revenue 'neutral,' through the closing of loopholes (tax preferences) and thus the broadening of the base (as mentioned in this wholly unscholarly press release they've all signed).

Problem: there are 'only' $1.2 trillion a year in ALL loopholes/tax preferences, and he's already made feints at keeping the charitable deduction, state income tax deductions, and the mortgage deductions. Which are large tax preferences.

So, to be revenue neutral, he must raise taxes on those below the top bracket. And that is BEFORE considering he also wants to increase defense spending, which would require still more tax increases on the lower bracket earners.

These experts in the field where expertise does not imply competence (see: Sholes) have bought a pig in a poke, and their conclusion simply follows the garbage in-garbage out model, by taking Romney's ASSERTIONS to be fact.

I would guess many of these same names, and the most prominent among them, could be found on a similar document backing up the George W. Bush budget plans early in his first term. We know how well all of that worked out.