« Why not increase this penalty? | Main | Article about GMU Economics »
Barack Obama's economic advisors
Here is the story, by Noam Scheiber of TNR, hat tip to Greg Mankiw. Excerpt:
Like Bill Clinton in 1992, Obama's campaign boasts a cadre of credentialed achievers. Intellectually, however, the Obamanauts couldn't be more different. Clinton delighted in surrounding himself with big-think public intellectuals--like economics commentator Robert Reich and political philosopher Bill Galston. You'd be hard-pressed to find a political philosopher in Obama's inner wonk-dom. His is dominated by a group of first-rate economists, beginning with Goolsbee, one of the profession's most respected tax experts. A Harvard economist named Jeff Liebman has been influential in helping Obama think through budget and retirement issues; another, David Cutler, helped shape his views on health care. Goolsbee, in particular, is an almost unprecedented figure in Democratic politics: an academic economist with a top campaign position and the candidate's ear.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on February 26, 2008 at 09:44 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
All the economics advisors in the world aren't much use if he's going to ignore them as he has on NAFTA.
Posted by: Chris at Feb 26, 2008 10:00:26 AM
All of these first rate economists and he still can not come up with one fundamentally sound position on the economy.
Posted by: john pertz at Feb 26, 2008 10:19:08 AM
Just remember that this is the primary season. Everyone is pandering to their respective extremes. Hopefully Obama is no exception. He's trying to get the backing of the unions (don't forget he is a Democrat). I'm not concerned about the soundness of his economic policy yet. If something hasn't formed before the general election, then I would be concerned. How soon we forget the median voter theorem.
Posted by: Dan M at Feb 26, 2008 10:26:32 AM
Dan,
His unifier rhetoric and relatively non-ideological economic advisors aside, what actions has Obama taken in Congress or in Illinois to suggest he's anywhere near the center? I realize the median voter theory suggests he'll be shifting to the center after the primaries, but he can't shift too far without losing credibility.
Posted by: Jake at Feb 26, 2008 11:00:28 AM
Seemingly, Obama is the anti-McCain. McCain is a divisive, highly-experienced conservative career-military foreign policy expert with outspoken positions on practically everything, but who is utterly tone-deaf on economics, while Obama is a unifier with little experience, few overt positions in his rhetoric, and horrible foreign policy instincts, but who has good economics advisors despite his liberal activist background.
Jake: Obama can go anywhere credibly - thus far he hasn't said anything substantive enough to weigh him down, and his legislative record is sufficiently empty and light-weight to not be an anchor, either. "Hope and Change" is not a liberal platform, or even slogan - the resemblance to "Morning in America" is palpable and oft-noted.
Posted by: rvman at Feb 26, 2008 11:20:43 AM
I'm glad Obama has real economists (not fools like Robert Reich) on his team. But I won't be comfortable about his ability to listen to them until he stops bashing free trade.
Posted by: James Hanley at Feb 26, 2008 11:28:43 AM
Although it is true that Obama has not layed out anything particularly substansive, if he does win the
democratic nomination he would still loose legitimacy and public support if he strayed too far from the left.
Most Americans see him as the progressive candidate, and it wouldn't be in Obama's best interest to become
more moderate. Check out this Obama video, it's pretty cool.
http://campaigncircus.com/video_player.php?v=7519
Posted by: kberly7568 at Feb 26, 2008 11:57:36 AM
What would a Goolsbee economic team mean to Federal policy? Does anyone know his approach to Fiscal policy, budgeting and taxes? Labor policy, regulation?
Or does he just look good in a suit?
Posted by: guy in the veal calf office at Feb 26, 2008 12:12:04 PM
no mention of david and christina romer?!
Posted by: anon at Feb 26, 2008 12:19:52 PM
Actually, in fairness to the Obamanator, he has already softened his anti_NAFTA stance and morphed into a "I just want to make sure free trade helps everyone" kind of schtick. So it does look like he's listening to the economic advisors.
Posted by: Keith at Feb 26, 2008 12:23:17 PM
"I just want to make sure free trade helps everyone." Whatever that means, in substantive terms. Obama also recently said he wouldn't have voted for NAFTA, but now we can't repeal it. He's all things to all men and women. If NAFTA is so bad, why won't he use his "transformative change" and get a Democratic House and Senate to join him in repealing it?
Posted by: massrepublican at Feb 26, 2008 12:33:40 PM
""I just want to make sure free trade helps everyone." Whatever that means, in substantive terms. Obama also recently said he wouldn't have voted for NAFTA, but now we can't repeal it. He's all things to all men and women."
Look, he's trying to play to the anti-trade rubes a bit, since they do form a significant part of the Democratic base, without boxing himself in to a dumb policy position. Works for me.
Posted by: Keith at Feb 26, 2008 12:38:06 PM
I think the idea that Obama will govern from the center is pretty naive. He has never done so before, in Illinios or in the Senate and he will have a democratic congres pushing him to the left.
My guess is that he will move to the center in the general election then promptly move back to the left when in power.
Also, for all those great advisors he seems to have a habit of saying economically stupid things. Like Nafta and his health care for hybrids proposal. At least McCain says that he does not know.
Better to not know than think you know what aint so.
Posted by: eccdogg at Feb 26, 2008 12:52:04 PM
I can't stress it enough...Obama in the presidency and Republicans in control of Congress is the best-case scenario those interested in limited government can hope for.
Posted by: Christopher Monnier at Feb 26, 2008 12:58:42 PM
"I can't stress it enough...Obama in the presidency and Republicans in control of Congress is the best-case scenario those interested in limited government can hope for."
I'd say it's the best-case scenario period. I think Obama would be an excellent manager of the Executive branch, and would actually listen to smart people who might disagree with his priors. I don't get that vibe from the current administration or any of the other candidates.
But a Republican Congress would rein in possible left-wing ideological excess, so I like that.
But it looks unlikely.
Posted by: Keith at Feb 26, 2008 1:13:18 PM
And with Obama in the White House and Dems controlling both the House and Senate?
Posted by: massrepublican at Feb 26, 2008 1:13:44 PM
"I just want to make sure free trade helps everyone"
reminds me of Yoram Bauman's principles of economics
http://www.standupeconomist.com/
"trade can make everyone better off" really means " trade can make everyone worse off".
The proof: We don't make the better claim "trade WILL make everyone better off", so this must not be true. Therefore, trade can make somebody worse off ... and therefore can make everybody worse off.
"Helping everyone" is nice campaign rhetoric, but an impractical policy directive. So, who's he going to hurt? That's where the analysis of advisors can help.
Posted by: ZBicyclist at Feb 26, 2008 1:27:04 PM
I am surprised to find that Obama has any ecomomic advisors at all after reading his "economic plan". There is not a single tax the guy doesn't want to raise and a single entitlement the guy doesn't want to expand. And the Democrats are claiming to be the party of fiscal discipline now? To hear Obama talk, the most important entitlement in this country seems to be the government's entitlement to the paychecks of people making more than minimum wage.
Once his ridiculous "Hope and Change" crap no longer gets him by and he actually has to reveal his policy positions, he will become the next George McGovern. The man is no centrist, and he will have a hard time winning the votes from the political center.
Posted by: Mark at Feb 26, 2008 1:27:20 PM
Wow, what a little cabal we have here - of folks who are winners in the current 'free trade' fiasco. The real elitists.
Well I have news for you. The tide is turning. Your policies have been poisoning the future for the middle class decades and now the future has arrived.
You may think just "the rubes" don't believe your free market rhetoric. But the fact is it's failed on the ground, where it matters, up close and personal. Unless you want to hit the streets fighting against democracy itself YOU WILL LOSE.
Posted by: dissent at Feb 26, 2008 1:35:48 PM
See? I'll take a Obama's deception over dissent's self-deception.
Posted by: Keith at Feb 26, 2008 1:40:26 PM
Zbicyclist,
Trade can't make everyone worse off.
Also, as a general matter, it seems to me that people are missing that most of the apparent losers of trade seem to belong to unions. Which seems like another way of saying that the welfare component of union pay is biting the dust.
Welfare component? Yes, if an auto maker can make cars at $X in Alabama or Texas at market wages, and it costs $3X in Michigan, then 2X of that 3X is voluntary welfare, or charity, being paid by gutless executive agents who get paid better by going with the flow than by rocking the boat and doing right by their shareholders.
That day is collectively coming to an end thanks to trade. If these same people in Michigan and Ohio would instead agree to be paid market wages instead of union wages then it is doubtful that their jobs would be on the chopping block.
Additionally, if we do establish Fortress America, and all manufacturing wares by legal fiat must be made in America, then the new factories will go up in right to work states, not union-yes states. Thus ending free trade won't bring (m?)any international jobs back to the rustbelt.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Feb 26, 2008 2:30:53 PM
To put it simply, "If Obama has such great non-ideological economic advisers, then why does he keep saying stupid, ideological things about economics?"
Posted by: Joey at Feb 26, 2008 2:38:58 PM
"If Obama has such great non-ideological economic advisers, then why does he keep saying stupid, ideological things about economics?"
Because he has to win over stupid ideological primary voters.
Posted by: Keith at Feb 26, 2008 2:45:27 PM
Swarthmore taught you well, huh Megan? - I mean - dissent?
Posted by: numbskullduggery at Feb 26, 2008 3:27:46 PM
I keep hearing from people like Jared Bernstein and people in this thread that candidates like Hillary and Obama don't actually mean what they are saying in the primaries, that their true colors will come out during the general election.
My question that no one seems to be answering is this: why should we believe that they are lying now and will telling the truth later, instead of the other way around, where they are lying during the general election and telling the truth during the primaries?
Regardless of the answer, they are liars who simply can't be trusted. If memory serves, Reagan said the same things during both the primaries and the general election and he did quite well by it. Why can't candidates today take a page from his campaigning book (regardless of whether or not you loved him or hated him, or both[!]) and be consistent in their message for both periods of time?
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Feb 26, 2008 3:29:20 PM
