10 Nobel Prize Winners Say Bush Endangering America

[jrydberg]

"Expert" economists have predicted 20 of the last 2 recessions

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by jimmiej
I stopped reading the article when they said they opposed tax cuts for the rich. Nobel Prize winners or not, they don't seem to understand who pays the most in taxes in America.

I don't seem to be able to find where they said that.

 

[Abracadabra]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
The poster was not stating their opinion of the message, but attacking the economists. Arguing the message would have been engaging in healthy debate. Attacking the messengers to dismiss their words as unimportant is quite different.

I guess that is open to interpretation. What I read was

We all know that 10 nobel prize winners from such conservative bastions as Berkeley and Princeton couldn't be wrong. They'd probably all vote for Carter if he were running.

If there's an attack in there, I am having difficulty in locating it. Maybe my bifocals need cleaning.

 

[faithinkarma]

The attack was the insinuation that these people were not to be believed because of some perceived liberal slant. That they would be willing to lie about Kerry's plan simply to give Kerry a boost.

 

[Viking]

Originally posted by Frank Babaganoush
We all know that 10 nobel prize winners from such conservative bastions as Berkeley and Princeton couldn't be wrong. They'd probably all vote for Carter if he were running.

Still not over Carter getting the Nobel prize while Dubya was starting an unjustified war ? Must have been a slap in the face for every conservative American

 

[Abracadabra]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
The attack was the insinuation that these people were not to be believed because of some perceived liberal slant. That they would be willing to lie about Kerry's plan simply to give Kerry a boost.

I missed the part in that individual's post where it indicated these individuals "were not to be believed". What was said was that these 10 could not be wrong. Maybe the difference is subtle, but it's there.

I suppose my bifocals really do need cleaning because in those 2 sentences I am unable to find any indication that the individual stated or even implied that these 10 economists "would be willing to lie about Kerry's plan simply to give Kerry a boost." It appears you might be mixing pieces of different posts, which would obviously cause some confusion. My replies to you have been about the 2 sentence post from Frank Babaganoush.

Call me slow (just don't call me late for dinner!), but I still don't see how this is an attack.

 

[Geoff_M]

Still not over Carter getting the Nobel prize while Dubya was starting an unjustified war ? Must have been a slap in the face for every conservative American

Nah, that prize lost a lot of its luster to us after they gave it to Yasser Arafat!

 

[cati]

o

 

[MJames41]

Personally, I would like some clarification on their past history. Were they part of the many in the economic field that in 1980 told the world that the economic plan of Ronald Reagon would lead to absolute disaster for the US and the world? If I remember correctly, we were being told by most of the economists who could find a microphone how terrible it was going to be.

And, the way they present it as a "tax cut for the rich", well, I'm not rich, but I was hired by someone who is - part of his tax cut helps pay my salary.

And, I have yet to have it explained to me why it is a "tax cut for the rich". When that is presented, they always use the dollar amounts. Well, if someone pays $3,000 in taxes and gets a cut of $300, yet someone pays $30,000 and gets a cut of $1,500, yes they did get more, but % wise they got less. If it's true that % wise the rich are getting more of a break, why isn't that used to attack the plan?

Just my thoughts.

 

[jimmiej]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
I don't seem to be able to find where they said that.

In not so many words, third paragraph.

 

[danacara]

The comedy of it is, Princeton is actually a decently conservative place, in so much as it's on the conservative end of the spectrum of colleges. It's not the University of Chicago, but it's more like UC than Berkeley, for sure. And Kahneman, while definitely a Democrat, won the Nobel for the Prospect Theory, which quantifies emotion, bias, and short-cutting as motives for behavior (as opposed to straight, rational logic). So if anyone is going to understand why Bush makes the decisions he makes, I humbly suggest that it might be Daniel Kahneman. OK, off my soapbox.