catallaxy files

catallaxy in technical exile

Romney's brains trust

with 42 comments

According to this report, Republican Mass. Governor Mitt Romney has already put together a quite impressive economics brains trust consisting of Glenn Hubbard and libertarian-leaning econoblogger Greg Mankiw for his Presidential run:

    R. Glenn Hubbard, dean of the Columbia University Graduate School of Business, and N. Gregory Mankiw, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, have agreed to join Romney’s political action committee, committee spokesman Jared Young said yesterday. Hubbard and Mankiw will play key roles in the governor’s presidential campaign if he decides to run — a decision that is widely presumed …
    Hubbard chaired Bush’s economic council from 2001 to 2003 and was succeeded by Mankiw, who served until 2005. Mankiw stirred up a controversy for the president in 2004 when he said the outsourcing of jobs was “probably a plus” for the U.S. economy in the long run. Many economists agreed with that view, but the comment revealed Mankiw’s lack of political instincts.
    Hubbard said he was attracted to Romney as someone who believes in modest government and who tries to use government to solve problems in a businesslike way. “Given the problems we have, having somebody with a strong business background and a good worldview on the economy is a good thing,” he said
Advertisements

Written by Admin

November 30, 2006 at 9:32 am

Posted in Uncategorized

42 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Unfortunately a good economic team does not win you primaries.

    Mint is no chance.

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 30, 2006 at 9:57 am

  2. IMO these two fine economists have damaged their reputations by enabling policies they knew were wrong (they only became critical of them after they’d left). They let themselves to be used.

    If Romney does make it, I hope they perform better next time

    derrida derider

    November 30, 2006 at 10:24 am

  3. If Glen Hubbard is on his team, I voting for the guy twice,

    Glen should have been the Fed governor. This is a fantastic team.

    JC.

    November 30, 2006 at 10:40 am

  4. Romney’s campaign has all the hallmarks of one of those exquisite china shops of poised and finely wrought policy offerings, into which some bull of a politician will eventually charge and from which Romney’s hopes will not recover. Wait for one of these guys to have an attack of candour on a slow news day closer to a crucial campaign.

    Andrew Elder

    November 30, 2006 at 11:36 am

  5. DD is right as usual.
    I do like both but both lost a lot of their reputations for supporting claptrap policies which they then stopped when they were no longer part of the Bush2 team.
    Thus we do need to know whether this would happen again or would they be more like Rubin or Summers

    Romney will not get the ‘evangelical’ vote in the primaries so it is hypothectical anyway

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 30, 2006 at 11:59 am

  6. “DD is right as usual.”

    No he ain’t. Derisive is never right.

    What mistakes did they make Homer, that has caught your goat.

    Elder
    Pathehtic analysis as ususal.

    JC.

    November 30, 2006 at 12:08 pm

  7. JC, how about the excuse for the tax cuts and where tax revenues would be in future years for a start for which both have recanted.

    both have also said Bush spending program was too large.

    They were known before they were part of the Bush2 team as small government men and then they metamorphised into big government conservatives for which they have now repented for their sins.

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 30, 2006 at 12:20 pm

  8. Homer

    The tax advice was great advice. it averted a major depression after the tech crash. Thank your lucky stars they cut taxes when they did, Homer, otherwise we would all be sucking eggs if the goof ball ( Gore was in charge). I do everyday, as I would have gone bust if there was a depression.

    I get up each day and thank God, Bush is Prez and not Gore who would most probably have raised taxes and sent the economy spinning out of control.

    Yes the spending part is horrendous. If they had frozen spending they would be in surplus now.

    JC.

    November 30, 2006 at 12:39 pm

  9. Horse potatoes.

    The problem was lack of savings.
    It was lower interest rates that did it not the spending, that like here in the early 90s retarded the recovery.

    Both Hubbard and Mankiw should have resigned forthwith with reputations in tact.

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 30, 2006 at 1:30 pm

  10. Homer, OT but shouldn’t you be expanding your name now to ‘Bring back CL at LP and bring back CL’s blog and bring me back a skinny latte while you’re at it’ ?

    Jason Soon

    November 30, 2006 at 1:33 pm

  11. Jase,

    I really don’t care what happens at LP now as I do not participate there.
    LP has now gone completely fruitloopy

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 30, 2006 at 2:04 pm

  12. Homer, this has become your kind of thread.

    C.L.

    November 30, 2006 at 2:36 pm

  13. CL,
    yout link doesn’t work

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 30, 2006 at 2:39 pm

  14. sorry it does now

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 30, 2006 at 2:39 pm

  15. another blog I have been banned from!!

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 30, 2006 at 2:40 pm

  16. Why was there a lack of savings Homer?And how would a tax cut dissuade savings….. I would have thought a tax cut would actually promote savings on the whole.

    I wanna hear this one.

    JC.

    November 30, 2006 at 2:50 pm

  17. ever hear of flow of funds JC?

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 30, 2006 at 2:52 pm

  18. What’s this conspiracy theory you have here Homes? What black chppoers have you seen out the window?

    I want you to address 16 please.

    JC.

    November 30, 2006 at 2:55 pm

  19. who is talking about conspiracy theories JC?

    A savings problem for a nation is usually defined by the evidence in a flow of funds analysis

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 30, 2006 at 3:42 pm

  20. A whatchamacallit ?
    Flow of funds analysis ?

    Lets hear it. I’m sure they’ll find some catchy theory to justify why tax cuts are bad.

    Stupid proletariat, they wouldn’t know what to do with their own money anyway.

    Jono

    November 30, 2006 at 3:50 pm

  21. Homer

    You have to explain to me why a tax wouldn’t promote savings or at the very least not dissuade savings even witha flow of funds analysis.

    Call it what you like, but you have to “splain” this to us.

    JC.

    November 30, 2006 at 4:08 pm

  22. flow of funds examines the flow of funds in the Government, household, corporate and external sectors.

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 30, 2006 at 4:16 pm

  23. Yes, i know homer.

    I want you to tell us why a tax cut dissuades savings…… which you seem to be avoiding at all costs.

    JC.

    November 30, 2006 at 5:21 pm

  24. because JC it reduces the Government savings and does not lead to a comensurate increase on the household side.

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 30, 2006 at 5:56 pm

  25. Homer — first, to the degree that Ricardian equivelance holds then the level of govt savings is not relevant. But let’s accept that RE isn’t 100%.

    The problem is the deficit, not the tax cut. If there was a tax and spending cut then there would be no deficit and no government dissaving.

    However, unlike JC & friends I cannot so easily forgive Dubya for his tax’n’spend policies. Sure he didn’t increase tax now… but all spending is tax at some point, either now, in the future, or through inflation. Someday people will have to pay for all of Dubya’s spending. Commie bastard.

    John Humphreys

    November 30, 2006 at 7:12 pm

  26. If you have never seen the spoof movie featuring the Glenn Hubbard look alike it is a hoot.

    http://www.chrisabraham.com/2006/05/ben_bernanke_il.php

    The guy is a supply-side economist. Not a tax cut economist that has been tagged by the media as a supply sider but somebody that actually understands what supply-side economics is all about. So I can’t help but love him.

    terjepetersen

    December 1, 2006 at 4:51 pm

  27. Humphreys
    You have any crow in the fridge?. if not go shoot one and start cooking.

    Listen very carefully.

    I supported Bush’s tax cuts because they were the right thing to do at the time. It may have averted a depression (combined with lower rates after the tech wreck ).

    I don’t support his big spending polices and have said that numerous time to make that clear. Go check the record.

    Do I support the GOP over the Dems? Sure I do. It’s a case of supporting the least worst of a rotten bunch and the Dems are a shocking, horrible party.

    You guys (except homer, as he just doesn’t get it) are being hoodwinked by the left’s message they are good economic managers because they balance the budget. In other words spending can go through the roof but as long as they balance the books it’s ok.

    Bullshit it is.

    That racket is even worse than deficit spending because experience tells us it is far harder to cut spending when it is covered by receipts that when it manifests though deficits.

    I would never fall for the leftoid trick like you do, humphreys. Homer of course is beyond help.

    I’ll repeat for the ‘th time. The GOP deserved to get punished for the crap they dished out. But putting these toal clowns in power is not the best option available.

    JC.

    December 1, 2006 at 7:41 pm

  28. Humphreys:

    “However, unlike JC & friends I cannot so easily forgive Dubya for his tax’n’spend policies.”

    don’t get all Homeresque on me now. Bush is responsible for letting spending get out of control. So why call him a tax’n spender?

    Get the defintions right here Humphreys.

    JC.

    December 1, 2006 at 7:46 pm

  29. JC, Bill Niskanen did some work at the Cato Institute and found high levels of Government spending almost always followed ‘taxcuts’.

    you still haven’t caught up with the Reagan years of fiscal irresponsibility so I guess it is too much to hope you know too much of the Bush2 years.

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    December 1, 2006 at 7:49 pm

  30. Ok
    Here is the big question for you Homer. I know how Humphreys would answer it ( god bless him) But I want uou to answer this.

    The US is running a defict of around 3% of GBP at the moment. Should the US government raise taxes to balance the budget, or should they cut spending?

    No wavering, just answer this question.

    JC.

    December 1, 2006 at 7:55 pm

  31. remaining silent will give the game away, homer.

    JC.

    December 1, 2006 at 7:59 pm

  32. looking at the figures I would say a combination of both however anyone who has ever examined US Government spending would realise most of it is in the off limits area.

    I can’t see how one could get the budget into the black without raising taxes.

    Your man Bill showed how to do it by a combination of both.
    Now there was a man who could cut spending over time.

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    December 1, 2006 at 8:04 pm

  33. Ok

    Thanks Homer. At least i know. So your real problem is not that they spent like crazy it’s that they didn’t raise the taxes to do it, otherwise you would be a full support of their actions. Good to see where you’re coming from.

    Yawn.There was never a year Clinton cut spending. And I don’t wanna get into another Clinton lovefest thing going here.

    JC.

    December 1, 2006 at 8:10 pm

  34. JC — I anticipated your objection and already pre-emptively answered it. Check my first comment. All government spending becomes tax at some point. The best measure for the tax burden created by a leader is their level of spending.

    By that (correct) measure, not to mention the issue of welfare reform, Clinton was far more market friendly than Dubya. That doesn’t mean I would necessarily support the Dems. In America you’re not forced to vote for a major party (like you are in Australia with out compulsory preferential voting) so I wouldn’t vote for either.

    You think I’m being tricked by the left. I think you’re having your naive faith in the right abused and you’re being taken for a mug. No matter how socialist the “right” gets there are always some people out there willing to defend them just because the media calls them “right”. Bob Hawke was the most libertarian PM in Australia for the last 30 years. It was NZ Labor that deregulated their economy and introduced significant tax cuts. The time has long gone when libertarians should see the right as an ally or even necessarily the lesser of two evils.

    John Humphreys

    December 2, 2006 at 1:02 pm

  35. JH is far more intelligent than I and has made the argument far better than I.

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    December 2, 2006 at 2:43 pm

  36. John
    Good point you raise.

    1. In all my time I never had a real problem with Clinton as long as he was checked by a GOP congress. His first two years were shockers and it wasn’t until the GOP was elected with their 10 point plan did things sart to look up. It was the time when both the bond and stock markets took off.

    2. I voted for Hawke. His economic plan with the accord was a sorry arse political plan that couldn’t work without heavy doses of inflation.

    And know, how wasn’t a libertarian type and it’s about time that term wasn’t hijacked. He was a corporatist with the accord being the centrepiece of his corporatism. …. Big government, big unions, big business.

    Please don’t tell me he reformed the financial markets. They had no choice. The only choice they had was openness or ruin. They chose correctly.

    lastly you have a problem if Homer agrees with you. Homes is the biggest socialist around.

    .

    JC.

    December 2, 2006 at 3:30 pm

  37. JC,
    if you think the Accord was a problem then you have no idea of how to reduce the real wage overhang at that time.

    if real wages were targeted to drop then it is hard to see the ‘inflationary consequences

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    December 2, 2006 at 4:17 pm

  38. Homer

    The accord was an agreement to manage wages through government fiat. Real wages weren’t reduced enough to lower unemployement which is why we had an unemployment rate of around 7.5% for the entire period. Wage increases were made nominally allowing inflation to do it’s horrid work.

    Of course this couldn’t continue forever which culminated in “the recession we had to have”.

    “then you have no idea of how to reduce the real wage overhang at that time.”

    There’s no reason to lower the real wage if the market is allowed to set the wage rate, Homer. There isn’t on single reason why a panel should be allowed to set wages.

    JC.

    December 2, 2006 at 4:39 pm

  39. JC, you boofhead read Supermac’s boyer lectures about the reasons behind the recession we had to have you know the one which brought down inflation.

    Throughout the accord we had very strong employment growth, falling unemployment and a rising share of GDP going to profits.

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    December 2, 2006 at 5:28 pm

  40. Anways john, you have no choice but to support the conseratives seeing what the left promises to do to labor laws.
    I have presented numerous reasons why the left is poison to the libertarian belief. Meanwhile you do your best to side with them.

    JC.

    December 2, 2006 at 5:29 pm

  41. Homer

    i know this was a time that must have seemed like heaven on earth for you so I’m sorry to burst your balloon.

    there is nothing in economics which says you can’t centrally fix wage rates below the clearing rate, so there were times when those nominal wage increases were in fact eaten away by the inflation rate at a faster rate to cause damage.

    the “recession we had to have” though was the aggregation of all those sins along with money supply running rampant.

    John
    you keep talking about the conservatives spending up big, which i magree is an awful problem.

    The question you need to ask yourself is who supports it and who doesn’t? The Dems never walked away from any of the big discreationary bills Bush signed. in fact there wasn’t a spending bill the Dems didn’t like. The only criticism they offered was that it wasn’t matched to taxes.

    The people who are up in arms over this mess are the Libertarians and libertarian right. you think that’s a bad thing? You will get no comfort from from the left over your views.

    JC.

    December 2, 2006 at 5:49 pm

  42. JC — I certainly prefer the right on IR. However, that isn’t the only issue on offer. Which side I support has a lot to do with wha they are offering a the time.

    For example, I was one of the few people in the public service actively declaring support for Bush in 2000 (because of the tax cut issue). But after 4 years of Bush supporting nearly every socialist government-loving legislation there was I could not support him again and I preferred Kerry for 2004.

    I am leaning Republican for 2008, primarily because the Dems have no decent candidates to offer. In Australia, I would never vote for Beazley, but in Rudd v Howard I am undecided.

    I know Hawke wasn’t libertarian. But he was less socialist than Fraser, Whitlam, Keating and Howard.

    I don’t expect support from the left. I don’t pretend they are an ally just because the right is increasingly becoming an enemy. A curse on both their houses. There is some value in opposing the incumbant until both sides start to learn the value of the libertarian vote.

    John Humphreys

    December 3, 2006 at 1:23 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: