Prominent Economists, Including Eight Nobel Laureates: ‘Do Not Vote for Donald Trump’ - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51295880]Nah, those economists have the same political agendas as the politicians. Not saying the base foundation is not firmly rooted in science but there is too much tea-leaves gazing involved for political ideologies to not take over a sizeable driving force of doctrine. i mean its only human.[/QUOTE] Okay but like I asked the last guy, what evidence makes you think this?

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51295880]Nah, those economists have the same political agendas as the politicians. Not saying the base foundation is not firmly rooted in science but there is too much tea-leaves gazing involved for political ideologies to not take over a sizeable driving force of doctrine. i mean its only human.[/QUOTE] I feel like you've made no effort at any point in your life to understand economics and that's why you think this.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51295880]Nah, those economists have the same political agendas as the politicians. Not saying the base foundation is not firmly rooted in science but there is too much tea-leaves gazing involved for political ideologies to not take over a sizeable driving force of doctrine. i mean its only human.[/QUOTE] so what evidence are acceptable to you guys? if 370 economists in these letters are too biased to be credible as with larry kudlow ( conservative ), andrew coyne (conservative), alan cole ( conservative) or larry summers ( centrist ), what is going to convince you guys that trump's economic policies are insanely bad? i honestly feel like god himself can come down, gliding from the golden skies as the angels sing, wrap his arm around trump supporters to tell them that trump's economic policies are bad and he'll be asked "wtf god, you sjw, how cucked are you and how much are you being paid by CTR?"

[QUOTE=BelatedGamer;51295884]Okay but like I asked the last guy, what evidence makes you think this?[/QUOTE] The predictability of human nature and the inherent contradictory basis of for example Keynesian and hayeksan economy systems. both are applied in countries and work even though they are based on contradicting ideological foundations.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;51295934]so what evidence are acceptable to you guys? if 370 economists in these letters are too biased to be credible as with larry kudlow ( conservative ), andrew coyne (conservative), alan cole ( conservative) or larry summers ( centrist ), what is going to convince you guys that trump's economic policies are insanely bad? i honestly feel like god himself can come down, gliding from the golden skies as the angels sing, wrap his arm around trump supporters to tell them that trump's economic policies are bad and he'll be asked "wtf god, you sjw, how cucked are you and how much are you being paid by CTR?"[/QUOTE] There is very little chance of a successful argument with the right, they only hear what they want to hear or continue to spam the same thing over and over. This is the foundation of a bias and their ideologies are so skewed by the environment they live in that their brain isn't capable of coming to its own conclusion logically.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51295954]The predictability of human nature and the inherent contradictory basis of for example Keynesian and hayeksan economy systems. both are applied in countries and work even though they are based on contradicting ideological foundations.[/QUOTE] Ok but how does that make 370 economists from across the ideological spectrum wrong other than the blanket generalization that they can't be trusted? Because you could apply that to anything. Hundreds of scientists could say that Trump is wrong on climate change and ypu would wave them away because humans. What exactly would you have to see to convince you that Trumps plans would be awful?

[QUOTE]What exactly would you have to see to convince you that Trumps plans would be awful?[/QUOTE] Its not about policy. The race between Clinton and Trump is a culture war. Experts be damned, muh identity is at stake.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51296004]Ok but how does that make 370 economists from across the ideological spectrum wrong other than the blanket generalization that they can't be trusted? Because you could apply that to anything. Hundreds of scientists could say that Trump is wrong on climate change and ypu would wave them away because humans. What exactly would you have to see to convince you that Trumps plans would be awful?[/QUOTE] Personally I believe they dont care what's going to happen one way or the other because of their sincere belief in their useless candidate. They back him because he said he'd do something about the corrupt system when in reality he has the most to lose from that happening, he and others like him. They also back him because he's not Clinton, and that's the biggest reason of all most Trumpets have when it comes to supporting or voting for the living Onion parody. They're basically fighting for the continued existence of their ideology, seeing it under threat by the left and center.

there's a whole world of different paradigms in economics (complexity economics, environmental economics, evolutionary economics to name some that don't come up so often outside academia). some schools may favor controlled empirical testing or mathematical proof and others may measure the reliability of a model by how well it's able to predict real world processes. edit: most of these schools can still agree on a lot of things so when 300 economists say something it might be worth to consider

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51296004]Ok but how does that make 370 economists from across the ideological spectrum wrong other than the blanket generalization that they can't be trusted? Because you could apply that to anything. Hundreds of scientists could say that Trump is wrong on climate change and ypu would wave them away because humans. What exactly would you have to see to convince you that Trumps plans would be awful?[/QUOTE] I usually completely ignore the economic part of the elections, since i just cannot be convinced we understand things enough one way or another to decide what is good or what is bad. The fact that economists follow political policy and not the other way around solidifies my view on this. Its not just 'humans lol' Its 'humans, and look, another failed prediction, another scandal of colluding, another time politicians got to steer economic doctrine because money in politics' Or do you really think that its a coincidence that the more subsidised an industry is, directly related to that is the more powerful this industry is as a voter block? If economists really had an influence on policy, would it not be safe to assume there are parts of the economy that are just invested in deeply even though nobody really cares besides economists? for the economic greater good? Name one... i challenge you to find a heavily subsidised or otherwise invested in part of the economy that has a small voter block because 'its for the greater good' You wont find any outright examples, and the ones you do find are short-lived and pop in and out of existence every few elections at the first sign of taxation pressure.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51296126]I usually completely ignore the economic part of the elections, since i just cannot be convinced we understand things enough one way or another to decide what is good or what is bad. The fact that economists follow political policy and not the other way around solidifies my view on this. Its not just 'humans lol' Its 'humans, and look, another failed prediction, another scandal of colluding, another time politicians got to steer economic doctrine because money in politics' Or do you really think that its a coincidence that the more subsidised an industry is, directly related to that is the more powerful this industry is as a voter block? If economists really had an influence on policy, would it not be safe to assume there are parts of the economy that are just invested in deeply even though nobody really cares besides economists? for the economic greater good? Name one... i challenge you to find a heavily subsidised or otherwise invested in part of the economy that has a small voter block because 'its for the greater good' You wont find any outright examples, and the ones you do find are short-lived and pop in and out of existence every few elections at the first sign of taxation pressure.[/QUOTE] are you really saying economics can't be used to predict "what is good or what is bad" in regards to the econimic situation and that the economic policy a candidate in an election will undertake is completely irrelevant because it's impossible to know what sort of actions are most likely succesful? also if you think fiscal policy is shaped without any consideration for any economic theory you are wrong, the people shaping the policy aren't making decisions based on a whim. basically what the fuck?

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51296126][B][I][U]I completely ignore the economic part of the elections[/U][/I][/B], since[B][I][U] i just cannot be convinced we understand things enough one way or another to decide what is good or what is bad. [/U][/I][/B]The fact that economists follow political policy and not the other way around solidifies my view on this.[/QUOTE] jesus lol. well at least you straight up admit your views can't be changed with logic & reasoning because you will refuse any evidence if you can't understand it the way you want to or if it disagrees with you. you should've straight up said this way earlier so you wouldn't waste anyone's time. the fact that you said this entire statement so casually and thought it was rational is most illuminating thing ever. god bless this election, its been magical year round

[QUOTE=Falchion;51296195]are you really saying economics can't be used to predict "what is good or what is bad" in regards to the econimic situation and that the economic policy a candidate in an election will undertake is completely irrelevant because it's impossible to know what sort of actions are most likely succesful? also if you think fiscal policy is shaped without any consideration for any economic theory you are wrong, the people shaping the policy aren't making decisions based on a whim. basically what the fuck?[/QUOTE] NO, im saying it cant reliably predict economic benefit and its heavily politicised to the point that economists listen more to politicians then politicians listen to economists so i feel I as most people are not qualified to make an informed opinion on the candidates on this topic... its all politics and hillary using her power keys to project her political support to trump, not actual economic doctrines duking it out for their merits... This video explains it probably better, but with all the power keys in mind, not just economists. [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs[/URL] [editline]2nd November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=lolwutdude;51296198]jesus lol. well at least you straight up admit your views can't be changed with logic & reasoning because you will refuse any evidence if you can't understand it the way you want to or if it disagrees with you. you should've straight up said this way earlier so you wouldn't waste anyone's time. the fact that you said this entire statement so casually and thought it was rational is most illuminating thing ever. god bless this election, its been magical year round[/QUOTE] That is not at all what i intended to convey, both trump and Hillary build their economic plans on theories of different ideologies. i have a rudimentary understanding of those but i don't intend beyond the 'which one is the hip one this decade' to make a judgement on which one is better. The point is not about 'im not open to logic and reasoning' im saying economics does not adhere to logic and reasoning in its purest form, it cannot be used to make long term predictions, no serious economist worth their salt pretends to claim they do... even climate models have better accuracy at predicting the weather next year to the date then economic models do on the economic status next year. So taking this into account, i just dont judge either candidate for their general economic background. I judge them for what points i want to see happening and what points id rather not see happening... I voted for Hillary btw, kinda regret it but i dunno, the dies have been cast lets just hope for the best.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51296220]NO, im saying it cant reliably predict economic benefit and its heavily politicised to the point that economists listen more to politicians then politicians listen to economists so i feel I as most people are not qualified to make an informed opinion on the candidates on this topic... its all politics and hillary using her power keys to project her political support to trump, not actual economic doctrines duking it out... This video explains it probably better, but with all the power keys in mind, not just economists. [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs[/url][/QUOTE] If you honestly think that Adam Smith's original theories on capitalism in The Wealth of Nations can predict "economic benefit" just as well as modern economic theory, I don't even know what to say because that's hilarious. He literally didn't even account for economic crises. It took like another 50 years after his death for Marx to propose ideas about labor and the centralization of capital that at least somewhat explained why economic crises exist. Saying "economists can't reliably predict what will benefit the economy so I don't listen to them" is about as dumb as saying "scientists can't reliably predict the weather so I don't listen to them about climate change." It's just wrong. Economists predicted the '08 housing crash [I]long[/I] in advance. We knew for a fact that the pound would drop sharply if the Brexit referendum passed. There's certain genuine economic facts, and ignoring the advice of some of the sharpest minds in economics because "well politics gets in the way" is like saying you don't believe sexuality is a real thing [I]at all[/I] because you dislike gender politics.

[QUOTE=Dirty_Ape;51294383]"Dang economists were the ones who ruined this country in the first place!"[/QUOTE] Hey that sounds familiar, being "tired of experts" and all

[QUOTE=.Isak.;51296257]If you honestly think that Adam Smith's original theories on capitalism in The Wealth of Nations can predict "economic benefit" just as well as modern economic theory, I don't even know what to say because that's hilarious. He literally didn't even account for economic crises. It took like another 50 years after his death for Marx to propose ideas about labor and the centralization of capital that at least somewhat explained why economic crises exist. Saying "economists can't reliably predict what will benefit the economy so I don't listen to them" is about as dumb as saying "scientists can't reliably predict the weather so I don't listen to them about climate change." It's just wrong. Economists predicted the '08 housing crash [I]long[/I] in advance. We knew for a fact that the pound would drop sharply if the Brexit referendum passed. There's certain genuine economic facts, and ignoring the advice of some of the sharpest minds in economics because "well politics gets in the way" is like saying you don't believe sexuality is a real thing [I]at all[/I] because you dislike gender politics.[/QUOTE] What political doctrines did Hillary and trump use to plan their economic plans?

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51296269]What political doctrines did Hillary and trump use to plan their economic plans?[/QUOTE] trump is in favor of more laissez faire low taxation economy which is supposed to fix the resulting deficit by boosting growth by making it more profitable to do business in the US. hillary is in favor of a plan for increased income equality to boost growth by increasing spending power of the middle-class. edit: and of course the whole basis for any sort of reasoning like this is rooted in economic academia. starting from price equilibrium, rational choice theory and labour market flexibility to restricted rationality and the effects of wages on growth edit2: not to say there's anything wrong with some laissez-faire with notable reservations but i don't really think you can cut taxes by 2,9 trillion and expect short or medium term economic growth to close the gap without severely downsizing state spending

[QUOTE=Falchion;51296328]trump is in favor of more laissez faire low taxation economy which is supposed to fix the resulting deficit by boosting growth by making it more profitable to do business in the US. hillary is in favor of a plan for increased income equality to boost growth by increasing spending power of the middle-class. edit: and of course the whole basis for any sort of reasoning like this is rooted in economic academia. starting from price equilibrium, rational choice theory and labour market flexibility to restricted rationality and the effects of wages on growth[/QUOTE] Not looking at the candidates for a second, which of these economic systems holds most a candle to realism to you?

[QUOTE=Falchion;51296328]trump is in favor of more laissez faire low taxation economy which is supposed to fix the resulting deficit by boosting growth by making it more profitable to do business in the US. hillary is in favor of a plan for increased income equality to boost growth by increasing spending power of the middle-class. edit: and of course the whole basis for any sort of reasoning like this is rooted in economic academia. starting from price equilibrium, rational choice theory and labour market flexibility to restricted rationality and the effects of wages on growth edit2: not to say there's anything wrong with some laissez-faire with notable reservations but i don't really think you can cut taxes by 2,9 trillion and expect short or medium term economic growth to close the gap without severely downsizing state spending[/QUOTE] I completely ignored the economic part of this post, since i just cannot be convinced we understand things enough one way or another to decide what is good or what is bad. The fact that facepunchers follow political policy and not the other way around solidifies my view on this.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51296357]Not looking at the candidates for a second, which of these economic systems holds most a candle to realism to you?[/QUOTE] 370 economists said that Trump's is least realistic in terms of helping

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;51296359]I completely ignored the economic part of this post, since i just cannot be convinced we understand things enough one way or another to decide what is good or what is bad. The fact that facepunchers follow political policy and not the other way around solidifies my view on this.[/QUOTE] I laughed don't get me wrong but your analogy is broken.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51296357]Not looking at the candidates for a second, which of these economic systems holds most a candle to realism to you?[/QUOTE] By far the second simply put, cutting taxes and dispensing with regulations might lead to short term gains but over a longer term they cost more than whatever benefits they give, because then you'll have to deal with the fallout of cutting regulations at that point. There's also no way that America can consider competing with other countries at present simply because the future of manufacturing industries is in automation, not a line job. If they start automating industrial lines more and more, production can increase and surpass countries still relying partly on manual labor in their industrial sector. While this can cause a short term issue thanks to an immediate drop in the number of jobs available, eventually more skilled labor will fill the requirement of the new age of manufacturing. When your middle class has more money to spend, conversely this also leads to a lower debt burden and debts being paid off sooner. The big issue now is inequity of income - prices have gone up enormously but income has hardly kept pace. Anybody who manages to increase the spending power of the middle class citizens will help keep the wheels turning instead of landing the burden of further difficulties on the shoulders of an already harassed population.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;51296359]i just cannot be convinced we understand things enough one way or another to decide what is good or what is bad.[/QUOTE] I'm trying to wrap my brain around this? how the hell should we run things if we don't understand them? go with gut feeling or some other bullshit?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51296381]I'm trying to wrap my brain around this? how the hell should we run things if we don't understand them? go with gut feeling or some other bullshit?[/QUOTE] He's parroting what Blizzerd said to show it's ridiculous.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51296357]Not looking at the candidates for a second, which of these economic systems holds most a candle to realism to you?[/QUOTE] i don't follow the us elections that closely but tax cuts that severe pose the question of where the difference is going to be substracted, especially without taking debt? I'm p sure he would have to really tone the tax cuts down. i'm more familiar with the deficit cutting (among other things) programs currently underway here and the fact is that it's very hard to find anything completely useless to just shave off the budget and cuts to central functions mean concrete effects on the outcomes. There comes a point where you can't maintain quality with less resources. on the other hand the views i mentioned don't challenge eachother completely, you could basically create a policy with both elements but in this particular case his ideas on taxation are outlandish.

[QUOTE=BelatedGamer;51296387]He's parroting what Blizzerd said to show it's ridiculous.[/QUOTE] Hes failing though, because [QUOTE]go with gut feeling or some other bullshit? [/QUOTE] Is pretty much how its done if you replace gut feeling with current favourable political agenda. Again, if there was a master plan we would expect to see areas funded even though it goes against any short term profit or simply goes against large voting blocks immediate wishes because its whats best for them long term according to the plan. But that's not what we see, we see a direct correlation between the size, coherence and activity of a voting block and their economic support under these systems. Instead of a plan with goals and checks and imperial data i see nothing but a tug of war of political ideologies and greed.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51296503]Hes failing though, because Is pretty much how its done if you replace gut feeling with current favourable political agenda. Again, if there was a master plan we would expect to see areas funded even though it goes against any short term profit or simply goes against large voting blocks immediate wishes because its whats best for them long term according to the plan. But that's not what we see, we see a direct correlation between the size, coherence and activity of a voting block and their economic support under these systems. Instead of a plan with goals and checks and imperial data i see nothing but a tug of war of political ideologies and greed.[/QUOTE] short term rewards over the long term is a widely researched phenomenon and generally you can expect any informed decision maker to realise which is more profitable in the current situation, who the decision is supposed to benefit is another matter. this is of course assuming perfect rationality from the decision maker but in reality a decision maker might not even be able to foresee any long term losses a short term gain may incur. resource control is not the singular form of control or power in society. your view assumes a zero sum game where anyones gain is someone elses loss which is not truly the matter even in a market economy. the economy is not a static "pie" divided into chunks, it's a dynamic process of circulation (not to downplay how overt wealth inequality can impede the process).

Oh fuck this is just like Brexit. Can economists just stop jinxing things?

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51296126]I usually completely ignore the economic part of the elections, since i just cannot be convinced we understand things enough one way or another to decide what is good or what is bad.[/QUOTE] Anti-intellectualism in action. This is just like "Britain's had enough of experts".

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51297624]Anti-intellectualism in action. This is just like "Britain's had enough of experts".[/QUOTE] I feel ive put forth my argument clearly enough now. and have yet to receive a rebuttal to my challenge.