The list is here (HT Tyler Cowen).
Nobody from William and Mary, American University, or the Urban Institute is on the list (although there are some people at each that I wouldn't have been surprised to see on it.
There are four from George Washington University: Howard Beales, Barry Chiswick, Douglas Frechtling, and Donald Parsons. I had Prof. Parsons for two semesters of labor economics. I haven't had contact with any of the others, but I met and saw Barry Chiswick speak at the recent Georgetown conference on high skilled immigration that I participated in.
Several George Mason University professors appear on the list.
As far as bloggers go, Taylor and Mankiw are the ones everyone is already aware of. I was personally a little surprised to see Mario Rizzo on the list as well.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Why are you surprised to see Rizzo on the list?
ReplyDeleteBecause I figured he'd be in the circle of libertarians that wouldn't dirty their hands with a more mainstream Republican.
DeleteMario is, in fact, setting up the "Sociopaths for Romney" committee as we speak. (Or so some smear artists would have it.)
DeleteWhy do these guys (aren't they all guys?) support Romney? Is it because their knowledge of economics is so extraordinarily narrow, or because they are oblivious to politics?
ReplyDeleteThere are obviously good economists on the list. It's a good question. Ultimately I think people can have political or social or ethical priorities that they place above their views on economic policy, and that could justify certain votes. You know, that's their business. What's sadder is to see a distortion of the economics to support your chosen candidate. They ought to just say "look, I'm going to vote for you because so much of your politics lines up with mine - but please understand how you're wrong on X, Y, or Z".
DeleteThat's what I try to do with Obama. I'm on the same wavelength as him on a lot of things politically (certainly more than any of the alternatives), but I don't think that's stopped me from criticizing some of the economics that comes out of the administration.
Granted, even when the economics coming out of this administration is bad, it's still often better than the alternative.
'I think people can have political or social or ethical priorities that they place above their views on economic policy...'
DeleteThat's absolutely fair enough for them as individual citizens, but they are specifically, as professional economists, endorsing an economic plan. If they don't believe in the economics they should be drummed out of the profession (were that possible!)
I think they endorsed the Romney plan specifically and got viewed as supporting Romney more generally.
ReplyDeleteIf so, let's hope they realise the 'error' and let people know!
DeleteHow can they endorse the Romney plan specifically when there are no specifics in the plan? I'm not sure how they arrived at those six bullet points on what Romney will do when he hasn't explained how he will do any of them.
DeleteI interpreted signing as restricted to economic policy issues. The statement itself speaks only to economic issues. However, at the time, I didn't realize the degree to which people would interpret this as an endorsement of Romney overall. (Yes, the headline is "Economists for Romney" but somehow I thought it was clear that it was only economics.) I do not endorse his views on foreign policy, civil liberties and social policy. Endorsement of his economic policy proposals is to be viewed only in comparison to Obama's policies(and also his lack of proposals to restrain spending). This does not represent my deepest ideals or a comprehensive economic philosophy. I believe it is akin to choosing the less scratchy toilet paper. I am distressed that some people would interpret my action as selling out to the GOP establishment or such. I am not looking for a job with a Romney administration. (They would never offer, anyway.I can't keep my mouth shut.)
ReplyDeleteMario, the Callahan administration is going to make you minister of toilet paper.
DeleteDoes your mother let you cross the street by yourself? - she shouldn't.
DeleteThe opening sentence in the Statement in Support reads:"We enthusiastically endorse Governor Mitt Romney’s economic plan to create jobs and restore economic growth while returning America to its tradition of economic freedom."
DeleteObviously that is not at all your opinion. You don't "enthusiastically endorse it", you think it is "the less scratchy toilet paper" out of two scratchy ones. So I have some questions:
a) Supposed that you didn't have a chance to read the Statement before signing it, why did you sign it, then?
b) Supposed that you did read the Statement before signing it, why did you sign it although you obviously disagree?
c) Given that you do disagree with the message, will there be a retraction, or a clarifing note on your blog?
Lets not forget Murray Rothbard voted for George H. Bush in 1992!
ReplyDeleteReally? Do you have documentation of that - like in an interview or something? Very interesting!
DeleteNot that I'm looking for new ways to let you slam Rothbard, and this certainly isn't proof that he physically went out and voted for Bush, but here you go:
Deletehttp://articles.latimes.com/1992-07-30/local/me-4460_1_george-bush
It's worth noting a couple of points (although you might be well-aware of them):
The first is that, although a lot of his current adherents have excoriated the "lesser of two evils" approach to politics, Rothbard seem to pretty consistently favor a large myriad of approaches towards building a freer society; everything from civil disobedience to taking an active role in the political process to affect marginal shifts in policy. On the latter, he generally viewed it more as a defensive move than one of explicit endorsement or promotion.
The second point is that Rothbard pretty famously had some shifts and swings in his political outlook in the later part of his life (particularly from the mid-80's onward). He still remained a pretty fierce critic of different components of the conservative movement, but there was a move towards courting it more directly. You'll note that this timeframe coincided with the Ron-Paul Newsletter "scandal(s)". There's arguments in libertarian circles regarding whether that courting of the Right was strategic or something more substantive. Your guess is as good as mine on that.
Dan, see his article "Working Our Way Back to the President" in 1992. It was a very unpopular decision of his among libertarians.
Delete