Exactly which economists are wholeheartedly endorsing the Paulson/Pork bailout?

[mhatrw]

Can I please see some names and get some links to the relevant analysis of this supposed legion of economists?

[stray cat]

1. Most are endorsing intervention immediately and so its this one

Between waiting or doing nothing and this bill they choose this bill but no one is happy about it regardless.

[mhatrw]

3. Who are "most"? Where is "most's" analysis?

I want to read it.

[AntiFascist]

2. crickets n/t

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mhatrw]

5. If you had anything other than a transparent ad hominem, you would surely post it. n/t

[Two Americas]

24. I believe

I "believe" in vaccinations. What does that have to do with this subject?

Are the pro-bailout economists posting in the health forum now?

[Gormy Cuss]

6. Do a google search.

If you mean Shelby's list of economists supporting it, I remember scanning the names earlier in the week. It may have been linked at his web site.

[mhatrw]

7. I want those in favor of this bailout to point me to the relevant analysis of the economists

who convinced them that this bailout was sound economic policy.

Why is this too much to ask?

[Gormy Cuss]

19. Perhaps you should call Sec. Paulson's office and ask for it.

That would be a primary source for an analysis by those supporting Paulson's positions. And no, I am not being facetious. Not everything is available on the internet. It's clear that responders here aren't meeting your needs.

[mhatrw]

25. He hasn't been returning my calls lately. n/t

[Gormy Cuss]

37. Cute.

Maybe you're dialing the wrong number. Try this one.

Department of the Treasury
General Information: [phone]

[mhatrw]

39. Closed. Recorded message directing me to their website.

The website doesn't appear include the relevant analysis of independent economists that I am seeking.

I will try to call again tomorrow and report back my results. Thanks.

[Two Americas]

38. of course

And in any case, you didn't say that there were not such economists - nor is the burden of proof upon you to prove that there are not. Others are claiming that there are economists whole heartedly supporting the bailout and making persuasive arguments to that effect. You merely asked to see those.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. I'll give you some

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/who-should-pay.html

http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12305746

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/the-bailout.html

Now those are just SOME examples

And please do go ahead and call those on the bailout side, as reluctant as they may be... on the enemies list

[mhatrw]

9. Why should I become enemies with those I basically agree with?

Link one just says we have to something quickly. I agree.

Link two is not written by an economist, but by the editorial staff of The Economist. Yes, plenty of editorial boards have voiced the importance of doing something right away. I agree. What I am looking for is an analysis of an economist who agrees that that something should Paulson's bailout plan.

Link three is the same guy as link one, writing another post saying that we need to do something long before the details of the Paulson plan ever emerged.

Yes, we need to do something. What I am looking for is an analysis of an economist who agrees that that something should Paulson's bailout plan. Can you or can you not supply such an analysis?

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. I did.. the same guy gave you analysis and links FROM OTHER economists

have a good day

[mhatrw]

13. No, you didn't.

In regards to the first link you supplied, Zingales is completely against the bailout and Krugman agrees with me, Hussman, Stiglitz, Soros and Galbraith that a direct capitalization of the banks in the manner that the Scandinavian banking crises were handled would be far superior to the Paulson plan.

In regards to the third link you supplied, how can any discussion from the beginning of September have anything to do with the Paulson/Pork bailout?

So far, that leaves us with exactly one "economist" in full support of this bailout, an anonymous guy with a blog who http://www.blogger.com/profile/11777056267168876929">assures us he has a PHD in economics and that this bailout will http://knzn.blogspot.com/2008/09/us-treasury-needs-better-marketing.html">make big money for us tax payers while fleecing the banks.

[AntiFascist]

12. Interesting links...

The economist at the first link advocates RAISING taxes on, not only the wealthy who benefitted from the housing boom, but on construction companies and others who also benefitted. (In other words, someone has to start helping payoff the increasing national debt)

The article at the second link had some interesting comments:

There is nothing stopping banks from issuing new shares at realisitically low market prices reflecting their current management skills. At low enough issue prices, they will get enough liquidity. Also, this way the risk is borne by those who know that risk means upswings AND downswings: the players in the financial markets.

also...

More intimidating is the feeling that Bush might sacntion invasion of another oil-rich "rogue" state to partially finance this foray onto taxpayers' reserves in the long run. Nigeria may well be next.

The third link was most telling. Are we kowtowing to the Chinese??

...Let's say that the Treasury did not support the debt of the mortgage agencies. The Chinese bought over $300 billion of that stuff and they were told that it is essentially riskless. The flow of capital from them and from other central banks, sovereign wealth funds, and plain old ordinary investors would shut down very quickly.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. He asked who or what? And the support ranges from the RIGHT WING

Economist, which is published in the UK by the way... I am damned positive you knew this

To the quite left wing, keynseian Paul Krugman

I gave him links

That is all

That said, the Economist is far closer to the Austrian school in many respects, tinged with guv'ment intervention when needed, but I am sure you also knew that... or probably not... mostly likely not

And we haven't had time for any article to make it to scholarly papers YET

[mhatrw]

16. Krugman says he agrees with Hussman and Galbraith that recapitalization

is far preferable to the massive taxpayer purchase of bad assets at inflated prices.

See:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/people-i-agree-with-part-two/

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/people-i-agree-with-part-one/

How about you? Which plan do you think is better: Paulson's folly or the Scandinavian solution?

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. yes and he also says that this is better than noting

nobody has called this a perfect bill... at least the honest ones

He also said last nigh that this crisis is worst than even he realized it was last week

[mhatrw]

26. And who is arguing for nothing?

The strawman cometh.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. So here is my question for yiu

what would you rather have? A deep recession or a depression?

Yes, there is a difference

And that is the point Krugman and others have made

I gave the links

Sorry...

More than that I cannot do.

[mhatrw]

30. I'd like to have the Scadinavian bank crisis rescue.

Why do you prefer the Paulson Legacy Protection Act?

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Because the Paulson plan has been dead for a while

and at least ON MONDAY the plan was very similar to that one

I am sure you knew that since you have READ every iteration of the bill as it has evolved

At this point it does not matter what or who presents to you

This is the thinking we have... mind made up, guv'ment is bad...

Well this applies in this case

The scariest eleven words in the English language are "I am from the government and I am here to help you."

I never, EVER thought I'd see Ronald Reagan proven right in a liberal site

By the way... here is a free clue... this will pass

It will do what it needs to do (we hope) reducing the severity of this and BUY US the time to get that legislation we need

Oh wait. that will not happen... since we will continue to talk a little revolution and never EVAH get off our butts

By the way, have a good life, I mean it... remind me never ever to answer any of your queries

[mhatrw]

44. What a surprise that you substituted a personal attack for economic analysis.

Keep digging.

[girl gone mad]

18. The economist is not right wing.

Why do you always go there?

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Because it is... and was behind supporting the Thatcher revolution

from word go

[AntiFascist]

23. The arguments on this thread have taken a decidedly ad hominem tone...

"most likely not"?

I understand that you were responding to the OP, I was simply pointing out that these were interesting links.

Instead of attacking me, whey don't you address the issues that I raised? Why shouldn't banks complaining of liquidity problems (after all, the ones in trouble are the ones where customers are moving their funds elsewhere) issue additional stock at lower prices? They basically gambled with our money and they are losing. Why shouldn't they pay for this?

On edit: the guvmint could even invest in some of these banks, and as some economists have pointed out, the potential returns could be multiplied, but only if the purchase prices are LOW and banks chosen intelligently.

[stillcool]

11. It wasn't hard to find...

You'll have to excuse my ignorance, as I don't know exactly what you're looking for, but a quick perusal of the net brought up these articles. The first one has a long list of economists.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/10/01/dueling-economists-experts-voice-support-for-bailout-bill/
October 1, 2008, 8:00 am
Dueling Economists: Experts Voice Support for Bailout Bill

Last week, a large group of prominent economists sent a letter to lawmakers opposing the Treasury’s plan to purchase troubled assets. Today, a separate group of economists have come out in support of the plan. Full text of the letter follows:

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/10/01/dueling-economists-experts-voice-support-for-bailout-bill/

and here' some articles..

September 19, 2008, 4:19 pm
Economists Back Government Moves

As the government’s efforts to save the financial system from impending ruin reached a high-water mark Friday, economists took a step back and offered tentative assessments of the Federal Reserve’s conduct through this year-long crisis.

By and large, they say, the central bank, in conjunction with the Treasury Department, has responded appropriately to an unprecedented stream of crises, and has likely warded off a truly monumental meltdown.

Bernanke

To be sure, it is far from clear that the worst has passed, and much uncertainty surrounds the outlook, particularly given the lack of detail in the government’s sweeping rescue plan. Still, economists say there are plenty of reasons to be hopeful.

“The way the financial markets were heading threatened to create the sort of permanent damage to the financial system we saw in the 1930s,” when the Fed reacted passively to failing banks, said Dana Johnson, chief economist with Comerica.

“To head off the potential damage… it was appropriate to do everything in power” to avoid a similar outcome, he said. Johnson views the Fed’s historic initiatives as a “magnificent reaction” to what policy makers have confronted.

Industry group the Business Roundtable said in a statement that Friday’s actions were “appropriate and timely,” and it argued for a “comprehensive” review of the nation’s financial regulatory structure.

Tyler Cowen, an economics professor at George Mason University, said Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury’s Henry Paulson “have been making good decisions, relative to a very bad starting place.” Given the nature of the troubles, the two officials started in a “very unfortunate position,” so “it’s very hard to second guess particular decisions,” he said.

One Federal Reserve veteran sees the Fed’s response throughout the crisis as entirely appropriate, but less dramatic than others. Indeed, for CarnegieMellon Tepper School of Business economics professor Marvin Goodfriend, a former Richmond Fed top economist, “the central bank has always had at its disposal two broad policies.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/09/19/economists-back-government-moves/





Economy
No Rescue? Economists Explore What's Next
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95214004&ft=1&f=1059
by Joshua Brockman

NPR.org, September 30, 2008 · The House of Representatives' defeat Monday of a $700 billion financial rescue package may have come as a surprise to President Bush and top administration officials. But economists who have been watching the process say the package had some shortcomings and these became hurdles to its passage.

As political leaders ponder what to do next, here's a look at what some economists think lies ahead.

[mhatrw]

15. The first link contains a lot of names, but no analysis whatsoever about the relative

benefits of the Paulson plan over any other plans.

The second link is from before the details of the Paulson plan were announced.

The third link contains three "ringing endorsements", two from noted opponents of the Paulson plan:

Dean Baker

Baker says he wasn't a fan of the proposed legislation because it was a "very indirect way" of addressing problems in this arena — namely, that firms lack the capital they need to support their operations. "It would have made much more sense just to inject capital directly into the financial system," he says.

Simon Johnson

Johnson, who is a professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management and served as the economic counselor for the International Monetary Fund, says the rescue package wasn't "ideal," but it would have bought time and "stabilized the markets." He expects some form of the legislation to pass later this week. Like Baker, Johnson says the crux of the problem is declining house prices. Regardless of whether the rescue legislation goes through, Johnson says the two key issues that need to be addressed by any follow-up plan are mortgages and banks' lack of capital.

Michele Gambera

The bailout plan proposed by Treasury and modified by Congress was "clearly imperfect," Gambera says, and he acknowledges that voter anger was high over what many saw as "free money" for Wall Street. Gambera agrees that the priority for banks remains capital — not a path for selling assets. Once banks have capital, they can write off bad assets and "come clean," he says.

But thanks for trying!

[stillcool]

32. Sorry...I guess you'll have to search..

instead of me. I don't know of anyone who thinks it's the best option. Maybe if you googled one of those economists names you might find their analysis?

[mhatrw]

36. Why can't somone in favor of this plan share with me the relevant

economic analysis that persuaded them to be in favor of this plan over other bailout options?

Why is this too much to ask?

[stillcool]

43. I don't know..

I'm neither in favor or opposed, as I am not knowledgeable enough to form an educated opinion. What I have seen is opposition with caveats. I was only replying to your question of anyone who supported this.

[Two Americas]

40. which is it?

The two arguments contradict each other.

- "Economists favor the bailout" so therefore, we all should as well.

- "Well of course no one favors it" so therefore, it doesn't matter if any economists favor it or not.

[stillcool]

42. Sorry..I'm no economist..

and don't have a clue as to what the real problem is or the real solution. I read the bill and got to page 13 when I realized I was way over my head.

[Greyhound]

17. As seen in this thread and linked examples, none.

No professional in the world is going to stake their professional reputation on an obvious boondoggle like this, unless they are cashing an eight figure check on their way to retirement in the South Seas.

Fear is such a powerful motivator and sadly, we have no leader saying "We have nothing to fear but..."

[Two Americas]

29. it is truly stunning

There is nothing there. Yet the whole discussion is dominated by an uproar as though there were, and we are all forced to point out straw man after straw man and laboriously refute every sort of illogical argument, and endure a relentless storm of insults and abuse.

[Two Americas]

22. good work

You successfully parted the bait from the switch.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. No he didn't

when he was given links he did not accept they exist....

By the way I could do this all afternoon and FIND MORE

But this is a waste of my time

[mhatrw]

33. I calmly and patiently evaluated each link and even the links supplied

on each link to resounding silence.

However, I do agree that when one has nothing to bring to the table, discussion is certainly a waste of time.

[Two Americas]

34. yes, you did

I don't know what else you could possibly do.

[RollWithIt]

31. Here ya go.....

September 30, 2008

To the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate:

As economists, we write to support the plan before Congress dealing with the financial crisis. We are well aware that the proposed intervention entails very large sums and considerable risk for American taxpayers, albeit upside as well as downside risk.

Ours is a mixed, private-public economic system. Even in normal times, our government is heavily involved in the economy and holds a considerable claim on the private sector via the tax system. That said, none of us would counsel government arrangements of the proposed type in normal times. Today’s situation is far from normal. Nor, unfortunately, is it unprecedented.

Our country has weathered significant financial crises over the years. It will weather this one as well. The main lesson learned from prior crises is that timely and aggressive government intervention can restore confidence and galvanize the private sector to take mutually reinforcing and economically beneficial actions. This ability of the government to set the economy on a healthy path makes the proposed intervention much less risky than would otherwise seem to be the case.

We call upon all members of Congress to support this important legislation knowing full well that doing so is neither easy nor guaranteed of success. *

Signed by*

Richard J Arnould, University of Illinois
Henry Aaron, The Brookings Institution
Bahram Adrangi, University of Portland
Lanny Arvan, University of Illiniois
Alan Auerbach, University of California at Berkeley
Lawrence Ausubel, University of Maryland
Kathy Baylis, University of Illinois
Valerie R. Bencivenga, University of Texas, Austin
Douglas Bernheim, Stanford University
Dan Bernhardt, University of Illinois
John Bigelow, The Princeton Economics Group
Douglas Blair, Rutgers University
Alan Blinder, Princeton University
Emily J. Blanchard, University of Virginia
Michael Boskin, Stanford University
Ricardo Caballero, MIT
Domingo Cavallo, Fundación Mediterránea, Argentina
Christophe Chamley, Boston University
Joaquin Cottani, LECG, LLC.
Peter Cramton, University of Maryland
Robert H. Dugger, Tudor Investment Corporation
Todd Easton, University of Portland
Everett Ehrlich, ESC Company
Niall Ferguson, Harvard University
Jeffrey Frankel Harvard University
Daniel Friedman, University of California, Santa Cruz
Donald Fullerton, University of Illinois
K.C. Fung, University of California
Eric Furstenberg, University of Virginia
Robert Hall, Stanford University and the Hoover Institution
Daniel S. Hamermesh, University of Texas at Austin
James Harrigan, University of Virginia
James Henry, Sag Harbor Group, Inc.
Firouz Gahvari, University of Illinois
Richard Gilbert, Compass Lexecon
John Goodman, National Center for Policy Analysis
Lawrence H. Goulder, Stanford University
Seung-Hyun Hong, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
William Johnson, University of Virginia
Joseph Kasputys, Global Insight, Inc.
Justine Kilpatrick, retired
Roger Koenker, University of Illinois
Laurence J. Kotlikoff, Boston University
Howard Kunreuther, University of Pennsylvania
Arvind Krishnamurthy, Northwestern University
Kevin Lang, Boston University
Barton Lipman, Boston University
Michael Manove, Boston University
Preston Mcafee, Caltech Robert Margo, Boston University
Walter W. McMahon, University of Illinois
David G. Mathiasen, United States Senior Executive Service
Joe Minarik, Committee for Economic Development
Len M. Nichols, New American Foundation
Van Doorn Ooms, Committee for Economic Development (retired)
Jon Orsag, University of Southern California
Christina Paxson, Princeton University
Thomas J. Prusa, Rutgers University
Salim Rashid, University of Illinois
Bruce Reynolds, University of Virginia
Hugh Rockoff, Rutgers University
Alice M. Rivlin, The Brookings Institution
Isabel Sawhill, Brookings Institution
Elliot Schwartz, Committee for Economic Development
Neil Sheflin, Rutgers University
George P. Shultz, Stanford University
Hal Sider, Compass Lexecon
Alan Spearot, University of California, Santa Cruz
Eric Toder, The Urban Institute
Eric Van Wincoop, University of Virginia
Luis M. Viceira, Harvard University
Ingo Vogelsang, Boston University
Eugene N. White, Rutgers University
Roberton C. Williams III, University of Texas at Austin
Robert Willig, Princeton University
Sidney G. Winter, University of Pennsylvania

[mhatrw]

35. Great. Now where is the analysis of any of these economists

explaining why Paulson's plan is superior to other bailout plans, such as the one highly successful Scandinavian bank crisis rescue plan?

Does any such analysis exist anywhere?

[AntiFascist]

46. Lots of universities there....

universities that depend upon government grants?

[mhatrw]

47. I don't think that has anything to do with it. I think somebody put

together a list of economists and/or academics who are Republican contributors, ex-Wall Street employees or Wall Street employed "visiting professors", called them up and asked them to take one for the team.

But I'm just guessing. If someone can point me to the relevant articles in which these individuals explain their views on the Paulson bailout plan versus other possible plans, I would be happy to retract this speculation.

[Hannah Bell]

45. eit

[mhatrw]

48. Still waiting for those economists who have written any economic analysis

favoring the untested Paulson bailout over other potential, historically successful options such as the Scandinavian bank crisis approach.

[mhatrw]

49. Kick for the morning crowd.

Still hoping to be directed to some economic analysis explaining why Paulson's unique, untested bailout plan is better than other tried and tested responses to credit crises caused by over-leveraged banks such as the Scandinavian bank rescue plan.

[mhatrw]

50. Bottom line analysis of the bill.

Lifted from Sparkatus on Salon.com:

"I'm no economist but I do work on wall st, have an mba and a degree in public policy.

This plan has everything you don't want:

Privatized benefits and socialized costs.

Bailout of the bad actors, not the worst affected.

Asymmetric info in which banks and which loans get sold to the Treasury.

Appearance of impropriety and self-dealing in Paulson's actions.

Consideration of only a single option.

Snap decision in the immediate aftermath of a crisis.

No change to the fundamental mode of operations.

Good money after bad right back into a malfunctioning system.

A recipe for moral hazard, and thus stage is set for Act II.

I guess its one big positive attribute is that it's currently on the table. That's not much.

I don't understand why the people who were at the wheel when we hit the iceberg haven't been thrown out yet. That's executive decision-making 101: get rid of the guys with an interest in retrospective CYA."

[Gormy Cuss]

51. Not an economic analysis, which is what you asked for in the OP.

In fact it's not much of an analysis period -- more like a talking points list from an anonymous MBA.
There are no citations to back up the assertions listed and no quantification of the effects claimed.

Had you set such a low barre for the analysis of the Paulson et al. bailout it would have been met early on in the thread.

[mhatrw]

55. It's the problems with the bill stated as simply as possible.

Where is your defense of the bill?

[fascisthunter]

52. Well..... I was Hoping to See some Names.... oh well

[TexasObserver]

53. All week long, do you recall seeing any economists supporting the bill?

I don't. I recall seeing talking heads who all agreed, IT MUST BE PASSED!

[fascisthunter]

54. Exactly..... I Recall the Same