CNN: Top economists overwhelmingly favor Mitt Romney

KingpinOG

Banned
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
3,339
Reputation
-3,355
Daps
2,460
Reppin
Ohio
Economists reluctantly pick Romney - Sep. 30, 2012

Economists reluctantly pick Romney

By Chris Isidore @CNNMoneyOctober 1, 2012: 2:06 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Economists think Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney would be better for the economy than President Obama. But they're not very enthusiastic about either of them.

Nine of 17 top economists surveyed by CNNMoney picked Romney when asked whose election would help the economy grow more. Only three picked Obama.

But the remaining five made no pick, with several suggesting neither would provide much of a lift to the sagging economy.

"Obama doesn't really understand business and Romney doesn't really understand how to govern. So pick your poison," said Gary Rosenberger of EconoPlay, one of those surveyed who refused to give a pick.

And many of those picking Romney were more critical of, as opposed to excited about, the Republican challenger's plans.

"Romney's policies would likely be less bad for the economy than Obama's," said Bill Watkins, executive director of the Center for Economic Research and Forecasting at Cal Lutheran University.

Related: Who's better for stocks, Obama or Romney?

Several of the economists who thought Romney would be better for the economy pointed out what they thought were flaws in Obama's record. These economists felt there is too much regulatory uncertainty hanging over businesses and that gridlock between the White House and Republicans in Congress also is a drag on hiring and growth.

"Romney might be more likely to get Congress to do something, whereas Obama has shown he can't," said David Wyss, a fellow at Brown University.

Allen Sinai of Decision Economics gave the Republican challenger the most enthusiastic support of those surveyed, saying Romney's calls for "cutting growth of government outlays, lowering tax rates and closing loopholes, less regulatory uncertainty ...smaller government and entitlement reform all must be tackled."

Related: Obama may be a job creator after all

But those who picked Obama are hoping things will be different if the president wins a second term. Obama could be in a better position to enact reforms on entitlement spending and reach a deal on deficit reduction than Romney, according to one economist.

"It's the Nixon-to-China syndrome -- only a Democrat can get away with it," said Bill Cheney, chief economist at Manulife Asset Management.
 

Billy Ocean

Divine Universal Black Man Representin'
Supporter
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
42,778
Reputation
9,295
Daps
207,727
Reppin
TPC
:heh:

this nikka made a thread stating economists "overwhelmingly" favor Romney over Obama then proceeds to post an article clearly stating the 17 economists they polled really ain't too giddy with either. You'sa funny mufukka I tell ya, breh
 

The Real

Anti-Ignorance
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
6,353
Reputation
725
Daps
10,724
Reppin
NYC
:heh:

this nikka made a thread stating economists "overwhelmingly" favor Romney over Obama then proceeds to post an article clearly stating the 17 economists they polled really ain't too giddy with either. You'sa funny mufukka I tell ya, breh

And it was only 9 who didn't choose Obama, not an "overwhelming" majority. With such a small sample size, the percentages could have gone either way. Also, look up the particular "economists" involved- you won't be surprised.
 

Julius Skrrvin

I be winkin' through the scope
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
16,319
Reputation
3,275
Daps
30,742
L2ltYWdlcy9wcm9kdWN0L3Byb21vdGlvbmFsL2Nuc3pkb29ybWF0X2JsYWNrX2xhcmdlLmpwZw==_H_SW350.jpg
 

Serious

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
79,913
Reputation
14,208
Daps
190,244
Reppin
1st Round Playoff Exits
the same idiots who said there was no risk of a recession in 2008

:ohhh:

This is why economics will always be the weakest form of science. Man f*ck it econ aint no science :yeshrug:

In other news, this line stuck out to me:
These economists felt there is too much regulatory uncertainty hanging over businesses and that gridlock between the White House and Republicans in Congress also is a drag on hiring and growth.

:shaq: sohh we gon act the rethugs aint purposely letting this country turn to sh*t, just to prove a point.
 

Black Magisterialness

Moderna Boi
Supporter
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
19,316
Reputation
4,045
Daps
46,259
if these economists are so great why don't they fix the economy :wtf:...


i hate "experts" commenting on things that are as arbitrary as economics.
 

Brown_Pride

All Star
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
6,416
Reputation
785
Daps
7,887
Reppin
Atheist for Jesus
:ohhh:
In other news, this line stuck out to me:
:shaq: sohh we gon act the rethugs aint purposely letting this country turn to sh*t, just to prove a point.

Exactly!!!.
Everyone outright KNOWS wtf is going on and it's like :manny:

Politics in general is like this.

The People:
"We know you lie, we know you steal, we know you screw us over more often than not, we know you are in bed with the people you work with, we know you've sold us out, in fact when polled we'll respond by giving you a low SINGLE DIGIT approval rating but hey...wtf we supposed to do about it. "

I can't really fault the scorpion anymore, IMHO the blame lies on the frog for letting dude get on his back. Scorpions gonna scorpion... :comeon:
 

Mr. Somebody

Friend Of A Friend
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
28,262
Reputation
2,041
Daps
43,604
Reppin
Los Angeles
Top Ten Worst Economist Predictions.

10. Bernie Madoff (2007)
"In today's regulatory environment, it's virtually impossible to violate rules. This is something that the public really doesn't understand. ... It's impossible for a violation to go undetected, certainly not for a considerable period of time."

Actually, this was probably the best prediction of the financial crisis, but it highlights a widespread flaw in Wall Street mentality: profits today, to hell with tomorrow.

9. Former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson (April 2007)
"I don't see (subprime mortgage market troubles) imposing a serious problem. I think it's going to be largely contained."

The lesson here is that financial mayhem is never contained. If you see one cockroach in the kitchen, you're chronically infested. Every financial crisis in modern history, from the Great Depression, to LTCM in 1998, to the housing bust of recent years, to the current euro crisis, spread beyond the borders of those guilty of causing the mess.

8. AIG financial products head Joseph Cassano (August 2007)
"It is hard for us, without being flippant, to even see a scenario within any kind of realm of reason that would see us losing one dollar in any of these [credit default swap] transactions."

Those transactions nearly bankrupted AIG (NYSE: AIG ) months later, in a financial nuclear explosion that pulled everyone from Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS ) to Citigroup (NYSE: C ) to Bank of America (NYSE: BAC ) into the mix. The lesson: Tail risk -- the really big risk that's hard to measure -- is the single most important kind of risk you can think about. Take whatever worst-case scenario you can think of, multiply it by 100, and prepare for it.

7. National Association of Realtors chief economist David Lereah (2006)
"The good news is that inventory levels are improving and housing supply will come closer to buyer demand in 2006. We expect a healthy and more balanced market next year."

Of all the bad predictions Lereah made, I picked this one because it underscores an important aspect of bubbles. Lereah may have been right in his prediction that demand was coming in line with supply. But what he missed that demand itself was a bubble. If supply and demand are in line, but demand is being driven by a bunch of myopic idiots plowing into real estate only because they want to flip it two months later, the market is out of balance.

6. Kevin Hassett, American Enterprise Institute (June 2008)
"The Federal Reserve and Congress have delivered a ton of economic stimulus, and that stimulus is set to juice up an economy that has been weak, but not terrible. If everything goes according to plan, the economy will grow faster in the second half of the year, and a recession will have been avoided."

The recession began seven months before Hassett made that remark. A few takeaways:

In general, really well thought-out stimulus (a rare breed) will only blunt, not prevent, a recession.
Educated economists remain oblivious to recessions in the middle of them.
Nothing ever goes according to plan.
5. The Washington Times (January 2005)
"Although the overworked analogy between housing and tech stocks sounds dramatic, it is quite preposterous. 'The downside of this [housing] bubble,' said [economist Stephen] Roach last month, is 'potentially far worse than that of the equity bubble.' Really? After March 2000, the Nasdaq stock index plummeted from about 5,000 to 1,000. Does Mr. Roach mean to imply $500,000 houses might likewise drop to $100,000? Not likely."

In some parts of Las Vegas and Miami, that's actually about what happened. The Washington Times clung to a false notion that houses were special -- that they couldn't possibly suffer from the boom-bust cycle of something like dot-com stocks. But they can. Any asset can become grossly overvalued.

4. Former Sen. Phil Gramm (July 2008)
"[T]his is a mental recession. ... We have sort of become a nation of whiners. You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline ..."

Some downturns truly are just psychological in nature. The (very short) post-9/11 slump, for example. But what we faced in 2008 was the real deal. People couldn't pay off their debts. Banks couldn't raise capital. Companies couldn't roll over commercial paper. There was nothing mental about it. It was a real, tangible decline.

3. Ben Stein, August 2007
"The financials, as I keep saying, are just super-bargains. Like Merrill Lynch ... a couple days ago it was trading at seven times earnings. Financials typically trade at a low P/E, but this is a joke. This stock ... they might as well be putting it in cereal boxes and giving it away. That's how cheap it is."

There are two kinds of bubbles. One is a valuation bubble, like Cisco (Nasdaq: CSCO ) or Amazon.com (Nasdaq: AMZN ) during the dot-com boom. The other is an income bubble. In income bubbles, valuations can look attractive, but the way a company makes money -- in Merrill's case, hawking subprime slime to widows and orphans -- is a bubble waiting to burst. That's what Stein, and many others, missed.

2. Alan Greenspan (May 2005)
"The use of a growing array of derivatives and the related application of more-sophisticated approaches to measuring and managing risk are key factors underpinning the greater resilience of our largest financial institutions. ... Derivatives have permitted the unbundling of financial risks."

Finance is probably the one industry where innovation is mostly problematic. Banking should be easy: Lend money to people who can pay you back. Most attempts to complicate it beyond that are steps toward instability.

1. Yours truly (June 2008)
In the summer of 2008, RBS predicted that stocks would fall 20% over the following three months. They were almost perfectly right. I balked.

"A hefty subset of the S&P 500 ... is doing quite well," I wrote. "For the entire index to fall 20% would mean that either companies that are still doing well will tank, or the ones that aren't will be virtually wiped out -- and both outcomes seem pretty extreme at best."

Whoops. I was dead wrong about many things. First, most companies weren't doing "quite well." Second, companies can be wiped out. It's worked that way for thousands of years. And third, markets are totally unpredictable.

So when someone makes a bold forecast, nod your head and say, "That's nice." Many people you think are crazy will turn out to be spot-on.

Got any bad predictions of your own? Fire away in the comment section below.

Check back every Tuesday and Thursday for Morgan Housel's columns on finance and economics.
 
Top