Hmm…

Rodrik hardly argues that we need to revert to the days before… time… and stop trading.

As I discussed, if you define serious even very narrowly, like having a phd in economics and teaching at a top department. You will find that there is very little agreement about what is ridiculous and what is not.

As far as economists that want to tear up NAFTA, how about author of "Has Globalization Gone Too Far" by Harvard economist Dani Rodrik? It is amazing how little policy agreement there is among "serious people" unless you define serious people as people who already agree with you.

Charlie

For the record, I totally agree with that statement.

Charlie,

Do you seriously wake up in the morning, knowing that the top dog at the U.S. Military, FEMA, Department of State, and Department of Energy all report to a guy that was a C student, and can hardly talk, and say: "screw allstate, we're already in good hands?"

Do you honestly look at the $9 Trillion national debt, and think "thanks to our country's strong leadership, this only costs us $400 Bilion a year in interest!"

Who are the economists that argue that free trade is a bad thing? You know, the ones who dream up policy for candidates who want to tear up NAFTA.

I guess I don't understand what you mean by comfortable. If it is don't find moraly objectionable, that is true. Obama wouldn't pick an economic advisor who thought inequality was unimportant and McCain wouldn't pick one that thought income redistribution was a major goal. But while economic advisors certainly will share ideological goals, I don't think there is much evidence that they only say things the candidate is comfortable with. It seems to contradict what every academic economists says about the process. Milton Friedman, for instance, advised at great length politicians that were uncomfortable with what he was telling them on a whole host of issues. Likewise, Mankiw tells wonderful stories about advising the president about a gas tax (which he was very uncomfortable with) and against steel tarriffs. It is almost just a fact of positive economics that someone will be uncomfortable with what an economist will tell them. Economics after all is about trade-offs and trade-offs are uncomfortable, especially for politicians. It seems much more accurate to say candidates choose good academic economists with similar ideological goals.

To put this in context to what I said earlier, this came up in response to the question, "why do we get such economic nonsense when both campaigns employ economists on their staffs?" You reply, "…Most economists don't think deeply enough about the tenets of basic economics…" I cut a lot out, but that is the jist. And unlike GMU economists, other economists are creationists. As if, were the GMU economics department to serve as advisor to the president, then all of a sudden our economic policies would be much better. I just don't see any evidence of that. Isn't the answer to the question posed a lot simpler, "it's not what voters want."

Charlie