From the first laureate mentioned:

"The main, underlying idea of Henry George is the taxation of land and other natural resources. At the time, people thought, "not really that too," but what was underlying his ideas is rent associated with things that are inelastically supplied, which are land and natural resources. And using natural resource extraction and using land rents as the basis of taxation is an argument that I think makes an awful lot of sense because it is a non-distortionary source of income and wealth. ...

... The question is: "Would it be better if we had more taxation of land and natural resource, and more revenue from natural resource management, and I would include atmosphere and spectrum." And less tax on income and savings. And I would say, "Yeah." And I think many economists would agree with that. So, if you want to sell it as a "Single Tax," then, no, you won't get anyone to agree that there's enough revenue there. If [what] you look at is a more "central" tax, then, yes, you will get most economists to agree with you.

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate in Economics (2001) in 2002 interview.

/it's hard to get here before fairtaxers and income taxers do. :)

My name is Jack Ryan, and I'm here to ask you a question.

Is a man not entitled to the sweat off his brow?

Nobel prize winning economists back Barack?

Meh.

Wot do the nations top bowlers think about Obama's fiscal policies?

That's wot Quatchi wants to know!

/Wot's that? They're split over them? Quelle suprise
//Don't like that sad attempt at humour? Spare me yer insults!
///Yes yes, Quatchi's small sad jokes make folk want to strike him repeatedly. I knows this.

who will the ppl listen to when the government says "go out and buy stuff to get the economy going!"

a scary old wo/man?
or a charismatic leader?



/have fun with your rebate checks on monday!

2! Its a landslide!

I liked Cornel West's take on this on Real Time. Paraphrasing, "Sometimes 'elitism' is merely a charge leveled at those with knowledge and wisdom amid a sea of relative ignorance."

Sounds better when he says it. One of my favorite orators.

They should leave out the Nobel Prize part, you know, to preserve their credibility.

I never understood the appeal of economics until I read Freakonomics. That book made me want to quit law and become an economist myself.

OMFG!! NOBEL PRIZE WINNER!! SMART GUY!! DO NOT WANT!! him am scary! me no want beer with hims! me ask preacher what him think. then me vote.me regular joe.knuckles not sore.me got gloves.me am smart!

chimp_ninja: I liked Cornel West's take on this on Real Time. Paraphrasing, "Sometimes 'elitism' is merely a charge leveled at those with knowledge and wisdom amid a sea of relative ignorance."

Sounds better when he says it. One of my favorite orators.

I think it has 2 purposes here. The right is expecting that it'll upset the poor middle class and make them think he believes he is superior to them (unlike the salt of the earth McCain and Clinton). The flip side is that they hope that many black youths will see him as 'educated' and 'with the man'. As there has been an undercurrent of rejection of education within that community, they hope it'll drive these people to not even vote.

And I sincerely hope all their efforts fail. I agree with the economists.

Daily Kos reports 2 economists favor Obama? SHOCKING!

Economists are like hurricane forecasters. The only thing they predict accurately has already happened. Yet the MSM still hangs on their every word as if it were gospel.

If your only metric is "better than Hillary and McCain at economics" then a angry bonobo with variant Creutzfeld-Jacob's disease would meet those standards.

Koalaesq: I never understood the appeal of economics until I read Freakonomics. That book made me want to quit law and become an economist myself.

An amazing book. Agreed.

well, 1 thing is for sure, someone is getting elected in November!

Obama's economic policies are great. More spending, more foreign aid, and taxes out the ass.

To the Republican, the Nobel Prize is worthless.

To the rest of the world, it signifies a great achievement.

/My team is bigger.

Headso: well, 1 thing is for sure, someone is getting elected in November!

No, Bush is going to declare martial law and appoint himself dictator for life, using Blackwater as a secrete police. No, no election for you.

TheNintendoKid: My name is Jack Ryan, and I'm here to ask you a question.

Is a man not entitled to the sweat off his brow?

Nope. The atmosphere takes it away via evaporation. Greedy bastard the atmosphere is.

rppp01a: Koalaesq: I never understood the appeal of economics until I read Freakonomics. That book made me want to quit law and become an economist myself.

An amazing book. Agreed.

Seconded. It's one of the most remarkable books I've read on the subject. 'The Undercover Economist' is also good.

/Ex-accountant

Koalaesq: I never understood the appeal of economics until I read Freakonomics. That book made me want to quit law and become an economist myself.

It made me want to join a crack gang. I did like that book, but I still have a lot of distate for economists in general. They've had a terrible record for some time now, and the ones that tend to get things right have usually just been following a political bent rather than processing the data better than the other guys. Not to say all economists are fortune tellers but I think the market is really based more on what the less intelligent majority thinks the market is based on at any given time. That can be shaped by economists but if enough people think something's bad and pull their money, it's gonna turn bad.

Basically you have to be smart enough to be stupid enough to be smart enough to predict the market fluctations. So much easier to deal drugs, isn't it?

MickCollins: 2! Its a landslide!

I wonder how many Nobel prize winners, or even credible economists, are in McCain's corner. I'm guessing even fewer.

Koalaesq: I never understood the appeal of economics until I read Freakonomics. That book made me want to quit law and become an economist myself.

That book was incredibly overrated. It was basically a case study in statistics 101; economics had pretty much fark all to do with it.

PlasticMoby:

OMFG!! NOBEL PRIZE WINNER!! SMART GUY!! DO NOT WANT!! him am scary! me no want beer with hims! me ask preacher what him think. then me vote.me regular joe.knuckles not sore.me got gloves.me am smart!


Candygram for Mongo!

Smellvin: If your only metric is "better than Hillary and McCain at economics" then a angry bonobo with variant Creutzfeld-Jacob's disease would meet those standards.

I say we have the rest of the campaign conducted entirely in the lexicon stable of Kanzi the bonobo!

Snarfangel:
/it's hard to get here before fairtaxers and income taxers do. :)

"Fair" tax, haha that's a good one. The government has NO constitutional authority to levy income taxes. Fact: the Constitution does NOT state anything of the sort. The only "authority" they have is under the trigger fingers of their hired goons the FBI and IRS, who will happily come to your house and steal your money unless you give it up willingly. The problem is that most people give it up willingly, which makes it almost impossible for the minority who know their rights to actually exercise them. Honestly, just leave me and my money alone, we can look after ourselves.

rppp01a: Koalaesq: I never understood the appeal of economics until I read Freakonomics. That book made me want to quit law and become an economist myself.

An amazing book. Agreed.

I'm seriously considering an economics grad degree just so I can go around and measure things because of that book. I try to do that anyway, unfortunatly my statistic-fu is incredibly weak, so I may just do business where I can pretend and make more money in the process.

Falcc It made me want to join a crack gang. I did like that book, but I still have a lot of distate for economists in general. They've had a terrible record for some time now, and the ones that tend to get things right have usually just been following a political bent rather than processing the data better than the other guys. Not to say all economists are fortune tellers but I think the market is really based more on what the less intelligent majority thinks the market is based on at any given time. That can be shaped by economists but if enough people think something's bad and pull their money, it's gonna turn bad

I mostly agree with you. I think it's really impossible to look at the 'big picture' and talk about 'the American economy' with any kind of successful track record- there are just too many varaibles, mostly the human element, which is pretty much impossible to gauge. But I like Freakonomics because it dealt with smaller issues and defined data, which is easier to process & can lead to a better prediction rate.

DrBenway: Candygram for Mongo!

Mongo only pawn... in game of life.

deltabourne: That book was incredibly overrated. It was basically a case study in statistics 101; economics had pretty much fark all to do with it.

Freakatistics didn't have the same ring to it.

No Such Agency Fair" tax, haha that's a good one. The government has NO constitutional authority to levy income taxes. Fact: the Constitution does NOT state anything of the sort. The only "authority" they have is under the trigger fingers of their hired goons the FBI and IRS, who will happily come to your house and steal your money unless you give it up willingly. The problem is that most people give it up willingly, which makes it almost impossible for the minority who know their rights to actually exercise them. Honestly, just leave me and my money alone, we can look after ourselves

Have you been talking with Wesley Snipes recently, by any chance?

deltabourne: That book was incredibly overrated. It was basically a case study in statistics 101; economics had pretty much fark all to do with it.

Economics is the analysis of statistics, you realize this right? The study of statistics does NOTHING to find causalities, only correlations. It's figuring out what combinations of correlations to use to prove causality through logic is what makes the economics argument.

nevirus: To the Republican, the Nobel Prize is worthless.

To the rest of the world, it signifies a great achievement.

/My team is bigger.

Friedman and Hayek would like a word with you...

Presidential election 2004, "Who Are These Nobel Prize Winning Economists Supporting Bush?" (six named for Bush, another ten named that supported Kerry):

http://economics.about.com/od/nobelprizeineconomics/a/election_nobel.htm

Well, that went well.

Headso

well, 1 thing is for sure, someone is getting elected in November!

Unless we get a repeat of 2000, in which case the Supremes may deadlock -- Clarence Thomas abstaining.

/That even made me laugh a little.

Saiga410: Headso: well, 1 thing is for sure, someone is getting elected in November!

No, Bush is going to declare martial law and appoint himself dictator for life, using Blackwater as a secrete police. No, no election for you.

I'd like to keep the government uninvolved in my secretions, thank you very much.

RevLovejoy: I'd like to keep the government uninvolved in my secretions, thank you very much.

I dunno. I'd kind of like the idea of a spunk inspector.

/Again?!
//That's the fifth time today!

Economists are the weathermen of science.

No Such Agency: "Fair" tax, haha that's a good one. The government has NO constitutional authority to levy income taxes. Fact: the Constitution does NOT state anything of the sort. The only "authority" they have is under the trigger fingers of their hired goons the FBI and IRS, who will happily come to your house and steal your money unless you give it up willingly. The problem is that most people give it up willingly, which makes it almost impossible for the minority who know their rights to actually exercise them. Honestly, just leave me and my money alone, we can look after ourselves.

The 16th Amendment would like a word with you.

Joseph Stigilitz is one of the most liberal economist to win the nobel prize, a better economist to track would be Gary Becker.

JC

We do not need the thinking of the past.

This times infinity.

Josef Stalin is an economist?

Here ^is a link to Obama's speech on economics that the economists found so laudatory.

I thought it was a pretty good start on what is an incredibly complex subject. I would heartily encourage anybody planning to troll the thread to listen to the speech first so that you don't sound stupider than usual.

JimmyReb: JC

JC?

Just Cuz?
Jesus Christ?
Jerry Curls?

quickdraw: I thought it was a pretty good start on what is an incredibly complex subject. I would heartily encourage anybody planning to troll the thread to listen to the speech first so that you don't sound stupider than usual.

haha good luck.

/it was a pretty good speech
//too bad the news didn't cover it at all, because they were too busy discussing how much jeremiah wright hates white people

willicus:
No Such Agency: "Fair" tax, haha that's a good one. The government has NO constitutional authority to levy income taxes. Fact: the Constitution does NOT state anything of the sort. The only "authority" they have is under the trigger fingers of their hired goons the FBI and IRS, who will happily come to your house and steal your money unless you give it up willingly. The problem is that most people give it up willingly, which makes it almost impossible for the minority who know their rights to actually exercise them. Honestly, just leave me and my money alone, we can look after ourselves.

The 16th Amendment would like a word with you.

The 16th amendment, if it were even valid which it is not (doesn't repeal a previous portion of the document) should apply only to income (profits from a venture) not wages which are funds exchanged for labour or services. A legal distinction conveniently overlooked by the federal goon squads.

nevirus: To the Republican, the Nobel Prize is worthless.

To the rest of the world, it signifies a great achievement.

/My team is bigger.

Nobel Prize Winner Dr. James Watson believes that, "Black People are Less Intelligent"

Wangari Maathai believes that the white man created HIV to destroy the black race. She later apologized but we know she faked the apology. (I'm sure she'd fit in well with Obama's church)

And a list of other Nobel Prize winners that will make you question the "achievement" in no particular order.

Yasser Arafat
Henry Kissinger
Jimmy Carter
Al Gore

Gandhi was nominated several times but never won.

If the Nobel prize in economy is anything like the Nobel prize for peace then who cares?

No Such Agency: The 16th amendment, if it were even valid which it is not (doesn't repeal a previous portion of the document) should apply only to income (profits from a venture) not wages which are funds exchanged for labour or services. A legal distinction conveniently overlooked by the federal goon squads.

Using that logic, you could say that black people's votes should only count as 3/5 of a white vote. They were given the right to vote, but it didn't say that their votes were equal.

Guess_Who: Nobel Prize Winner Dr. James Watson believes that, "Black People are Less Intelligent"

He had at least one black ancestor (16% of his genes, or the equivalent of a great-grandparent). Does this support his belief, or disprove it? :D