Graph(s) of the week: economists and elections

The Economist recently had a story on the survey conducted among America's economists on  how they feel about the current recovery, and how they assess each of the two Presidential candidates. It should be said that the whole survey was a bit biased towards President Obama, since 45% of the respondents rated themselves as Democrats, while 7% were Republicans. According to this it's even more surprising that the Romney campaign attracted over 600 US economists (6 Nobel prize winners) to sign up for the Hubbard-Taylor-Mankiw plan. I'm guessing not all of them responded in the survey. It attracted only 312 NBER research associates and 51 NABE forecast panel members (which is actually a fair sample). 


It's not that economists have any influence on who turns out to be the electoral winner, but it's interesting to examine how they feel on things they are supposed to be experts on, like the recovery. Even though they rarely agree with each other. 

The most interesting is the divide among the academics on the reason why the recovery is so slow:


It's good that they mostly agree that the recovery tends to be weak after a financial crisis (see graph 3 as well), but it's not so good that a lot of them don't realize the structural slowdown and an unsustainable pre-crisis growth model, which failed to respond to the technological shock of the past 15 years. 

Comments

  1. kyle819 October 2012 at 22:57

    That survey was absolutely absurd. To think that anyone calling themselves an economist, or even an educated person would possibly think that the Democrats will perform better in fiscal discipline, growth, or immigration reform.(cause that was such a high priority for the administration wasn't it)

    I am not saying the Republicans are great, they are not. But it is hard to imagine how anyone, even if they set out to deliberately wreck the economy could have done a better job than this bunch of immature leftist ideologues we have running our country.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vuk Vukovic20 October 2012 at 07:53

      yes, that's why I said that it was a bit biased. This can only mean that even professional economists cannot escape ideology :)
      But as I said in the text I'm worried about the prevalence of opinion among economists over what is causing a slow recovery.

      Delete
  2. Charlie24 October 2012 at 21:43

    I would rate the following (I'm not an economist, but the effect is the same):
    policy uncertainty ... 5
    tight money ... 1
    tight fiscal policy ... 2
    outside shocks ... 3
    weak recovery after financial crisis ... 4
    structural growth slowdown ... 3

    so to sum up the blame is on policymakers now and before, inside and outside the country (eurozone), and a financial crisis effect, which is again partly policymakers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John Turpin26 October 2012 at 08:33

      I'd put the weak recovery after the crisis as the biggest issue. The rest are just an effect of that, even the outside shocks if you think of the eurozone contagion threat

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Short-selling explained (case study: movie "Trading Places")

Image
After seeing the movie "Trading Places" (1983), starring Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd, for the thousandth time during the holiday season, I decided to write a quick post explaining what happened at the end of this movie that gets so many people puzzled (including me for the first couple of times I've seen it). This entertaining 80s comedy can actually teach you more about finance and trading than any other Hollywood movie (not counting documentaries), including the infamous "Wall Street" (1987), starring Michael Douglas as the ruthless Gordon Gecko, and especially the latest Scorsese film "The Wolf of Wall Street" (2013). Anyway, we all know the story from Trading Places. Dan Aykroyd plays a snobbish investor Louis Winthorpe ("the Third"), while Eddie Murphy plays a street con artist Billy Ray Valentine whose lives get reversed as a result of a bet between two cruel millionaires, the Duke brothers. The Dukes own a commodities bro...
Read more

Economic history: mercantilism and international trade

Image
All too often during poor economic times many debunked economic fallacies of the past get reinvented. The reason is simple: a search for ideas and solutions alternative to the "mainstream" (however we define it) allows those who succumb to these fallacies to repeat the ancient errors classical economics was hoping to get rid of. The short-termism of politics plays a crucial role in the process of persistent perpetuation of such fallacies. This is why in times like these it is essential to go back in economic history and debunk some of the ideas that tend to surface repeatedly. In the following couple of posts, I attempt to do just that.  Misunderstanding trade  One of the most misunderstood areas of economics is international trade. More precisely, the idea that if we were to boost net exports - by subsidizing exports and constraining imports - we can achieve higher GDP growth. If one looks at the simple arithmetic of a standard Keynesian macro model: Y=C+I+G+NX, the...
Read more

Rent-seeking explained: Removing barriers to entry in the taxi market

Image
The taxi market is undoubtedly one of the best examples of something economists like to call rent-seeking . What does this phenomenon stand for and why do economists (particularly political economists) devote a lot of attention to it?  The classical definition was given by Gordon Tullock back in his  1967  seminal paper "The welfare cost of tariffs, monopolies and theft" , even though the phrase itself was coined by Anne Krueger in 1974 .  Rent-seeking is a process of gaining private benefits through the political process (by lobbying or logrolling for example). It implies gaining protection for a certain privileged group, which in return promises political support, large campaign contributions, or even bribes. This protection varies from giving a monopoly status to a certain company, regulating market entry than hampers competition (such as introducing licences to specific occupations), imposing tariffs to import goods to protect the domestic indus...
Read more

Graphs (images) of the week: Separated by a border

Image
Usually comparing countries or regions requires looking at GDP growth data, GDP per capita, living standards, relative income or even the happiness index. But even a simple areal glimpse at the borders separating two systems can be more than enough to conclude which country is richer, healthier, more educated and on average more prosperous. It tells us that the causes of between-country differences have to be more than just climate, geography, culture or mentality. Particularly when the same nation is separated by nothing more than a border depicting the striking differences in political systems of the two countries (a classical example here are East and West Germany, but an equally good example can be North or South Korea).  As a result I found that the following set of images paint a better  picture  on between-country differences   than any existing data on global inequality.  The first one is from a  blog post I encountered on the Why Nations ...
Read more