I guess they didn’t poll Laffer and Kudlow.
It’s our money. The government can learn to live without it.
BTW: Art Laffer disagrees with you.
If they can’t even read a simple question their opinions are useless.
Keynesian economists is my bet. Plus they got it wrong for 8 years with Obama. Wouldn’t trust them.
“35 of 37 economists said Trump was wrong.”
I had no idea there were so few economists in the world.
Which of these geniuses forewarned the nation about the economic crash of 2009 that has lasted seven years? Seems that all the economists during the Obama Reign of Error were always finding “green shoots” and other rosy scenarios that predicted an upturn that never happened except for the richest in the gambling den of Wall St. Now they can find nothing but gloom and doom, so expect a tremendous surge in the economy by next year.
35 of 37 hardcore leftist economist agree, Trump is a poo poo head.
Jobs are appearing out of nowhere ... just because companies believe they can invest in themselves again, Trump is forced to re-negotiate NAFTA and (perhaps) some other agreements and I just learned that before 1913, the USA had roads, schools, buildings, fire dept.s, police dept.s,government salaries, and we were educated enough to build the Empire State Building (f'rinstance) in record time, Hoover dam and a ton of etcetera's ..... and we were not taxed a dime !
Every penny earned was OURS !
We learned to save and invest and provide for ourselves and others and there was no welfare or anything.
And how did we pay for all of this ?
TRADE TAXES AND TARIFFS
So companies are going to expand, make MORE stuff and sell it all over the world and the "made in America" label will cost the buyer a little more.
The problem is accepting the premise that tax cuts have to be paid for. Once you accept the premise, you can’t win the debate. He who frames the question will always control the ranges of the answer. We have to ask the questions.
Economists also tell us that it’s good when a factory moves overseas, destroying the economy of the town that the workers lived in because the loss of incomes will be offset by the increase in profit.
So why do they suddenly care about “what it will cost” when people actually get to keep their own money? If the government makes less money, then the government needs to do what it tells us: tighten the belt, find ways to save, reduce your standard of living.
Economists are like climatologists.
They will say anything and change data measurements accordingly to match expectations based on the theology of their paymasters.
The notion that tax cuts need to be paid for exist only in seriously convoluted liberal minds.
Never underestimate the power of ignorant people in large groups.
and whom is the $B+ president and whom are a bunch of 100K a year paper pushers.
“I guess they didn’t poll Laffer and Kudlow.”
The 35 know that Reagan’s economists included spending cuts in the Reagan program because they also believed that the tax cuts wouldn’t pay for themselves. Which they didn’t, as verified by Lawrence Lindsey’s exhaustive regression analysis published in The Growth Experiment.
The Reagan economists predicted that economic growth stimulated by the tax cuts would recoup a major portion of the tax revenue projected to be lost using static analysis. They predicted just over 60% would be recovered and that’s the number that Lindsey’s study found as well.
The only rate cuts that resulted in increased revenue were the capital gains cuts ironically signed into law by Jimmy Carter.
And I trust economists less than RINOs
Too bad Milton Friedman ain’t around
Yeah, all the experts said Clinton would win too. Tax Cuts WILL pay for themselves. They’ve done it before.
That, and, spending cuts.
As an old time builder and user of modeling, algorithms, spreadsheets, I am skeptical of anybody making snap judgments over such complicated predictions.
I worked for an oil company that developed a monte carlo simulation model, so sophisticated, that other bigger companies paid to use it.
At that point in time, oil prices were about $3.00 per bbl.
We used ranges for the price, way up to $7.50 for our “Best” case, but assigned a small 5% chance to that.
Little did we know prices would be over $20.00 within months, and would remain so.
Years later, different company, considering a huge acquisition, of a supposedly countercyclical industry opportunity.
Guess what? Instead of one half of the company going downcycle, both did. IOW they did NOT behave as predicted based on history. It very nearly sunk the parent firm.
It is the data variables, not the model itself.
If it is good enough for Art Laffer, it is good enough for me.