494 Creeplenomics Economists


.
Real Ways To Reclaim Freedom For America
.

Need and Demand: Creeplenomics economists are clueless about the relationship between need and demand. In the next two pages we will examine two petitions that creeple economists have supported.

.
Creeple economists who signed either the 2003 or 2009 economic petitions: They should be asked why they have not resigned in disgrace, and whether they have paid back their stolen tax cuts, as stipulated by universal Democratic Party doctrine.
.
• George Akerlof University of California – Berkeley • Kenneth J. Arrow Stanford University • Peter Diamond Massachusetts Institute of Technology • Lawrence R. Klein University of Pennsylvania • Daniel L. McFadden University of California – Berkeley • Franco Modigliani Massachusetts Institute of Technology • Douglass C. North Washington University • Paul A. Samuelson Massachusetts Institute of Technology • William F. Sharpe Stanford University • Robert M. Solow Massachusetts Institute of Technology • Joseph Stiglitz Columbia University • Randolph T. Beard Auburn University • Gary Latanich Arkansas State University • Irma Adelman University of California – Berkeley • Brad DeLong University of California – Berkeley • Robert M. Anderson University of California • Robert K. Arnold Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy • Michael A. Bernstein University of California – San Diego • Daniel L. Blakley University of San Francisco • Clair Brown University of California – Berkeley • Jeremy Bulow Stanford University • Susan B. Carter University of California – Riverside • Menzie D. Chinn University of California – Santa Cruz • Stephen S. Cohen University of California – Berkeley • William S. Comanor University of California – Santa Barbara & Los Angeles • Vincent P. Crawford University of California – San Diego • Al Culver California State University – Chico • James G. Devine Loyola Marymount University • Barry Eichengreen University of California – Berkeley • Sasan Fayazmanesh California State University – Fresno • Robert J. Flanagan Stanford University • Victor R. Fuchs Stanford University • David E. Gallo California State University – Chico • Richard J. Gilbert University of California – Berkeley • Steven M. Goldman University of California – Berkeley • Douglas F. Greer San Jose State University • Gregory Grossman University of California – Berkeley • Terry L. Gustafson California State University – Chico • Steven C. Hackett Humboldt State University • Bronwyn H. Hall University of California – Berkeley • Scott Houser California State University – Fresno • Michael Hutchison University of California – Santa Cruz • Sanford M. Jacoby University of California – Los Angeles • George Jouganatos California State University • Linda Kamas Santa Clara University • David E. Kaun University of California – Santa Cruz • Lori G. Kletzer University of California – Santa Cruz • Mordecai Kurz Stanford University • David L. Landes City College of San Francisco • J. Paul Leigh University of California – Davis • David T. Levine University of California – Berkeley • Stephen Levy Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy • James D. Likens Pomona College • Mark H. Maier Glendale Community College • Donald Mar San Francisco State University • Robert N. Mefford UAW of San Francisco • Gerald M. Meier Stanford University • Edward Miguel University of California, Berkeley • Suleman A. Moosa California State University – Chico • Saeed Mortazavi Humboldt State University • Joanna Moss San Francisco State University • Peggy B. Musgrave University of California – Santa Cruz • G. Alan Myers Santa Fe Workshops • Roger G. Noll Stanford University • Paul Ong University of California – Los Angeles • Pastor Manuel University of California – Santa Cruz • Michael Perelman California State University – Chico • Jeffrey M. Perloff University of California – Berkeley • Marshall Pomer Macroeconomic Policy Institute • John M. Quigley University of California – Berkeley • Michael Reich University of California – Berkeley • Gerard Roland University of California – Berkeley • David Romer University of California – Berkeley • Christina Romer University of California, Berkeley • Daniel Rubinfeld University of California – Berkeley • Allen J. Scott University of California – Los Angeles • Carl Shapiro University of California, Berkeley • Laurence Shute California State Polytechnic University, Pomona • Joel Sobel University of California • Michael Storper University of California – Los Angeles • Myra H. Strober Stanford University • Mayo C. Toruno California State University, San Bernardino • Donald Vial California Foundation on the Environment and the Economy • Brian D. Wright University of California – Berkeley • Janet Yellen University of California – Berkeley • Carol Zabin University of California Berkeley • Henry W. Zaretsky Henry W. Zaretsky & Assoc., Inc. • Lyuba Zarsky Global Development and Environment Institute • John Zysman Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy • Ravi Bhandari University of California – Berkeley • Deborah L. Garvey Santa Clara University • Kenneth Sokoloff University of California – Los Angeles • Harold A. Forman UFCW • Marcus Alexis Stanford University • Leland S Prussia Bank of America
.

…….Premise: In February of 2003, 494 creeple economists signed a petition to stop President Bush’s proposed tax cuts. When Bush’s tax cuts were implemented everything that the creeple economists had predicted would happen turned out to be wrong.

Prediction: Would reduce government revenues.

Actual result: Government revenues increased at a higher rate from 2004 to 2007 than they did in the three years following the implementation year of Bill Clinton’s tax increase (in both cases the deficits were caused by even higher rates of big-mommy government spending).

Prediction: Would result in a smaller taxes-paid gap between rich and poor.

Actual result: Percent of income taxes paid by the rich went from 54.4% in 2003 to 60.6% in 2007, while income taxes paid by the poor and the middle class went down from 45.6% in 2003 to 39.4% in 2007. The taxes-paid gap expanded.

Prediction: Would not create jobs or economic growth.

Actual result:  Over the next 4 years 8 million net jobs were created.

Question: Would you want these creeplenomics economists advising your government, guiding your company’s economic future, teaching your children at college, or directing your life?

Conundrum: If one wished to prove the folly of following a particular branch of economics, one could hardly devise a better scenario.

[The fear that you feel should be that these creeplenomics economists are still very influential in running the country.]

Explanation: Economists are supposed to know that given scenario A and scenario B, which scenario is more likely to produce success. These 494 creeple economists should have all been fired from wherever they were employed – every prediction was proven wrong. These creeple economists didn’t look at history to see what works and what doesn’t work. They live in a fairy tale world of ideological assumptions (based on paranoia) that tell them how the economy should work. The problem is that their assumptions don’t match history, and their predictions don’t match reality.

Conclusion: Creeple economic predictions are seldom correct – why listen to them?

Need and Demand: As I mentioned at the top of the page, creeplenomics economists are clueless about the relationship between need and demand.


[This page is from The Paranoid Quiz website. To understand the context take the quiz.]
Advertisements