U.S. Economics Nobel Laureates for Hillary Clinton

[zoogs]

http://www.nobellaureatesforclinton.us/economics/

 

I hope they won't mind my reproducing the letter in full.

 

OPEN LETTER TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM RECIPIENTS OF THE SVERIGES RIKSBANK PRIZE IN ECONOMIC SCIENCES IN MEMORY OF ALFRED NOBEL

October 31, 2016

We are Nobel Laureates in Economics who strongly endorse and support Hillary Clinton's candidacy for President of the United States.

 

We have diverse views about many policy issues, such as how big a safety net the government should provide, how best to promote growth and innovation, and what tax rates and entitlement spending levels should be. But we have decided to sign this letter jointly to express our shared judgments that Hillary Clinton is eminently qualified to serve as President, and Donald Trump is unfit for this office.

 

Secretary Clinton has a long distinguished record of public service. When she puts forward serious proposals to invest in infrastructure, education, and innovation, and when she supports comprehensive immigration reform, she knows what she is talking about. She has shown that she believes in evidence-based policy-making, and she understands that we need to strengthen economic growth and to ensure that it produces broad-based prosperity. And she has the experience and temperament to manage the American economy in times of both strength and volatility.

 

By contrast, Donald Trump has no record of public service and offers an incoherent economic agenda. His reckless threats to start trade wars with several of our largest trading partners, his plan to deport millions of immigrants, his trillions of dollars of unfunded tax cuts, his casual suggestion that the United States could threaten default on its debt in order to renegotiate with our creditors as if Treasuries were a junk bondeach of these proposals could jeopardize the foundations of American prosperity and the global economy. His other rash statements about many subjects outside economics have also raised very serious concerns.

 

We do not all agree with every one of Secretary Clinton's proposals, but in this election, the choice is clear: Hillary Clinton is by far the superior presidential candidate for our economy and our country.

 

(Signatories)

 

Kenneth Arrow (1972)

Angus Deaton (2015)

Peter Diamond (2010)

Oliver Hart (2016)

Daniel Kahneman (2002)

Robert Lucas (1995)

Eric Maskin (2007)

Daniel McFadden (2000)

Robert Merton (1997)

Roger Myerson (2007)

Edmund Phelps (2006)

Alvin Roth (2012)

Thomas Sargent (2011)

Thomas Schelling (2005)

William Sharpe (1990)

Robert Shiller (2013)

Christopher Sims (2011)

Robert Solow (1987)

Joseph Stiglitz (2001)

 

 

Of about 34 surviving American Nobel laureates in economics, this list numbers 19. That's an impressive assembly of voices, and it doesn't indicate the preferences of the remaining 15 or so (one of them, for example, is Paul Krugman, and he writes an open letter for Hillary about once a week in the New York Times).

 

The contrast could scarcely be more stark. And to my mind, the choice -- whether or not it's strictly optimal -- could not be clearer.

[Landlord]

They're all liberals and biased, so this obviously can't be trusted.

[zoogs]

Another group of economists, this time numbering 370 and including several Nobel laureates also, sign onto a letter against Trump:

 

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/EconomistLetter11012016.pdf

 

Oh, but these two are just so indistinguishable. Who cares, right?

[84HuskerLaw]

Obama was given a Nobel peace prize before he was even in office and look what that means. The Nobel awards are given out by liberals to liberals. When there are that many in the U.S. alone, it means very little. Could someone even list 3 of Hillary Clinton's great new ideas for helping to revive the economy? We are now approaching 8 years of uninterrupted economic doldrums with the Fed once again keeping interest rates near zero! With the pedal to the metal (that is what having no interest for savings in this country means essentially in economic terms) and we have basically 'flatline' activity, the liberals in charge of anything is just plain dumb. Most recent news report of last few days showed once again wages were down and inflation up meaning workers are still going backwards financially. Social security recipients have been without any meaningful inflation adjustment since Obama took office. After 7 years of no adjustments while inflation has been in the rate of 3 to 4% annually the real economic impact has been a cut of about 25% in social security benefits to the seniors. At the same time, workers have seend massive increases in the tax burden over the same period with increases of thousands of dollars per year in property, sales, excise, income and other taxes. The bottome line is the standard of living for most Americans has declined precipitously while the Dems are driving the bus. One should also add that the true economic inflation has been much higher as we have seen health care insurance and costs generally skyrocketing at more than 10% per year and compounded around 85% in just the past 7 years. Reports are that many premiums for Obamacare are going up from 20 to as much as 65% in January! People are dropping out of the insane program by the millions and while the program was sold as 'health insurance for all', fewer than 15 million of our 300 million have ever been enrolled. And to put icing on the cake, in about 60 days, all small and medium sized businesses will now have to comply for their workers. We all know that jobs aplenty are being adjusted to less than 30 hours a week as that is the threshhold for mandatory coverage. Simply stated, liberal economics (I really don't consider anything the liberals come up as being 'economic') are a joke.

[funhusker]

Obama was given a Nobel peace prize before he was even in office and look what that means. The Nobel awards are given out by liberals to liberals. When there are that many in the U.S. alone, it means very little. Could someone even list 3 of Hillary Clinton's great new ideas for helping to revive the economy? We are now approaching 8 years of uninterrupted economic doldrums with the Fed once again keeping interest rates near zero! With the pedal to the metal (that is what having no interest for savings in this country means essentially in economic terms) and we have basically 'flatline' activity, the liberals in charge of anything is just plain dumb. Most recent news report of last few days showed once again wages were down and inflation up meaning workers are still going backwards financially. Social security recipients have been without any meaningful inflation adjustment since Obama took office. After 7 years of no adjustments while inflation has been in the rate of 3 to 4% annually the real economic impact has been a cut of about 25% in social security benefits to the seniors. At the same time, workers have seend massive increases in the tax burden over the same period with increases of thousands of dollars per year in property, sales, excise, income and other taxes. The bottome line is the standard of living for most Americans has declined precipitously while the Dems are driving the bus. One should also add that the true economic inflation has been much higher as we have seen health care insurance and costs generally skyrocketing at more than 10% per year and compounded around 85% in just the past 7 years. Reports are that many premiums for Obamacare are going up from 20 to as much as 65% in January! People are dropping out of the insane program by the millions and while the program was sold as 'health insurance for all', fewer than 15 million of our 300 million have ever been enrolled. And to put icing on the cake, in about 60 days, all small and medium sized businesses will now have to comply for their workers. We all know that jobs aplenty are being adjusted to less than 30 hours a week as that is the threshhold for mandatory coverage. Simply stated, liberal economics (I really don't consider anything the liberals come up as being 'economic') are a joke.

Not defending Obamacare in its entirety at all, there are a lot of things that need fixed if not thrown out. But you are criticizing a plan that your statement shows you don't even have the basic understanding of why the law was implemented in the first place.

 

There was a subset of that 300 million left uninsured through employers, Medicaid, or Medicare. That subset was the focus.

[Danny Bateman]

The odd thing about complaining about Obamacare is that the end product is essentially the program Republicans offered in the 90s when Hillary was trying to push for healthcare reform. There are some important differences, but they're VERY similar.

Obama wanted more than the ACA ended up giving. Complaints about it should be directed at the GOP, since their opposition was what transformed it into something very similar to what they had already devised.

[zoogs]

My god, of course someone really believes the Nobel economics prize is only for liberals.

 

Go on, 84. Find us that community of economics experts penning letters in support of Trump.

 

Or is it the educated economics elites that should be disregarded, too?

 

Keep in mind, your fundamental thesis is that conservatives such as yourself are reasoned, educated, and arrive at their positions using logic rather than emotion. So, go on.

[Landlord]

They're all liberals and biased, so this obviously can't be trusted.

 

 

The Nobel awards are given out by liberals to liberals.

 

 

 

 

It'd be funny if it wasn't so discouraging