When Hillary dismisses economists as "elites" isn't she aping bush's* view of scientists?

Hillary Clinton has now described economists as out of touch elitists implying that she, and the average citizen, knows better than they do how to revive the economy.

How does this differ from bush* when he states that he knows better than scientists what is good for the country?

How is it different from bush* when he fires generals who don't agree with his war policy?

How is Hillary's response better than bush's* when HE dismisses economists?

Personally, I think it's time to start listening to the experts and stop going with gut feelings or poll numbers. In case anyone has missed it, this country is in very bad shape right now and it's not going to get better if we don't let those who have spent their lives studying help us fix things.

We need someone in office who is willing to listen to experts, not insult them.

I would have laughed my ass off. I really thought so much better than that of her.

Sad, really.

I have no BA whatsoever and I'll happily take you on over this issue.

logic, but none were grounded in mathematical rigor nor were subject to experiment.

Even the laws of supply and demand are mis-named - but function well enough in the practical world to go unquestioned. But look to the extremes ... inflexible need for vital supplies for the poor and the inability to satisfy the whims of the wealthy. The law's a joke when you compare it to the adjustments to F=MA for relativity.

Are you sure you want to take me on?

We're talking economics, not physics.

Doubtless, economics lacks the testability of physics since ultimately economic activity is dependent on the vagaries of human psychology and decision-making; witness the recent rise of behavioral economics, which starts from the notions that perhaps humans aren't such rational decision-makers after all and that measures of economic benefit may be a lot more subjective than previously supposed.

I would also be the first to point out that economics has also failed to develop a solid theoretical foundation that explains everyday phenomena, such as oligopolies. So I'll be quite happy to respond to your argument with something more nuanced than simply copying the a graph from Wikipedia's article on basic economics.

Economists do not know what's good for the country. Unlike physicists, who can confidently make predictions based on observable facts, politicians should not depend on professional economists.

That's my point - HRC's point - and I support her professionally. I know both sides and am qualified to offer my opinion.

I doubt very much that you have a degree in economics or physics. Maybe you read a book once, but that's not really the same thing, is it?

You took some physics classes in college, and since physicists are smarter than economists, you're smarter than the economists. Am I getting this right? XD

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that while physics and other hard sciences deal in testable hypotheses, economics is a soft science which does not really offer testable predictions and therefore we shouldn't be led astray by economic 'laws' that aren't nearly as robust as the 'laws' proposed by physicists.

Firstly, I'd point to an increasing body of work among economists that does deal in experiment and quantative results. In recent years, experiments on both human volunteers and animals have taught us interesting things about economics as social behavior - revealing, for example, that monkeys have a concept of fairness which elevates social cohesion of a group above individual advantage, or illuminating how the role of herding behavior in markets can give rise to results that are not predicted by rational-choice theory (which is based on the assumption that market participants will always act in their own long-term interest, when clearly, they don't).

Now, it's true that this does not result in anything like the reliability of a physics experiment. I can sit here at my desk and make calculations about the behavior of a weight suspended from a spring on the moon, in confidence that if the experiment is set up by an astronaut it will yield results in accordance with what we know about gravity, simple harmonic motion etc.

On the other hand, not all physical problems are so easily addressed. Consider global warming, for example. At the basic level, climate change can be understood as a problem of thermodynamics. We have energy inputs from the burning of fuel and solar irradiance, we can calculate the absorption coefficients of air, saline bodies like seas and oceans, and make predictions about the capacity of the earth to maintain a cyclic thermal equilibrium that we can literally live with. However, the scale and complexity of the earth make predicting the weather very difficult, and indeed it's almost impossible to accurately predict the weather more than about 10 days ahead, despite throwing vast reserves of computer power at it. Making predictions about climate is also massively difficult, although many people incorrectly assume that climate predictions are simply cumulative weather predictions extrapolated over a much longer period.

As a result, theories of climate change have been extremely contentious and so governments are torn between climatologists and their evidence of shrinking glaciers and rising sea levels on the one hand, and the arguments of energy providers and their economists on the other hand. The issue is sufficiently complex that the bush administration has managed to postpone dealing with the issue in any meaningful way since 2000, and indeed Bill Clinton referred to similar arguments when declining to sign the US up to the Kyoto treaty. So even though climatology is ultimately a problem of thermodynamics, it's such a complex and intractable on that making accurate predictions is very hard and it's taken literally decades for a majority of people to come around to the idea that rising CO2 levels are probably a Bad Thing which we need to address ASAP.

Economists are in a similar position. Given information about income, outgoings, interest rates and so on, it's relatively easy to look at an individual case and say it's better to spend or save. But generalising this to a national or global population is quite difficult, and made more so by the fact that homo economicus, the 'rational man', does not actually exist: instead there's an assumption that markets will behave rationally because it's in their long term interest to do so, and it's hard to explain why markets should boom and bust as they do in the real world, when very often booms and busts are the result of irrational behavior.

however, what you are doing is throwing the baby out with the bathwater: observing that economics has imperfect predictive power, you then jump to the conclusion that since it can't yield predictible results, it's therefore worthless, or at least worth no more than the gut instincts of an experienced person like Hillary Clinton. Yet, as I've shown, physicists and climatologists struggle with the same issue. furthermore, while economics does not adequately predict market movements in the same way that, say, we can calculate the motion of the planets a century from now, it does actually do quite a good job of predicting how economic situations will turn out within limits.

Thus, while no computer on earth can tell us whether it will snow in New York next December 25th, we can predict with confidence that next winter is going to be cold relative to summer, and explain why this should be so with similarly high confidence. I put it to you that economics is in a similar situation: it's very hard to guess future market behavior with precision and even if we found a way to do so, everyone would start using it, resulting in new kinds of nonlinear behavior - essentially, variations in alpha always lead to new equilibriums for beta. On the other hand, economics has proved remarkably successful in explaining the general behavior of markets, if not in predicting their specific movements.

I suggest that because of its fundamentally subjective nature, as well as the nonlinear dynamics arising out of any economic system, the discipline has rather more in common with quantum than classical physics, since in QM the act of measurement unavoidably perturbs the observed result, and if future results are coupled to the results of past measurements, nonlinearities are unavoidable and complexity multiplies exponentially.

You mentioned earlier that while relatively had significant but nonetheless predictable implications for Newtonian mechanics and consigned F=MA to a secondary position, subordinate to the need to define a frame of reference, quantum physics has shown that imponderables exist within any given frame of reference and limit the predictive resolution of any given theory - in much the same way that Godel demonstrated an irreducible tension between completeness and consistency in formal systems, destroying the notion that mathematics could ever provide a complete description of reality.

Nevertheless, we can still make use of incomplete formal and physical systems, and do so every day - for example, your computer depends entirely on discoveries arising out of quantum theory and it works despite the fact that we lack a grand unified theory in physics. I suggest to you that while economics is similarly limited by its own terms of reference, this does not invalidate its predictive power or its usefulness as a tool for constructing policy.

In short, you'd be an idiot to rely solely on economics to formulate economic policy. Indeed, gut instinct has a valuable role to play because all evolution has been shaped by countless millenia of practical (rather than theoretical) economic decision-making, and we are, in a sense, highly optimised economic calculating machines - much like you can be a great tennis player without needing the ability to calculate the trajectory of a tennis ball on paper. On the other hand, you'd be an even greater idiot to ignore the intellectual tools that economics does provide, just as you'd be a fool to design any ballistic system more complex than a trebuchet without pulling out the pen and paper to calculate your design parameters in advance.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why economists may not have the answers to everything, but when they unanimously agree you are about to drive off a cliff, it is probably worth paying attention.

Fantastic analysis, Anigbrowl. Thanks.

Very well done!

Particularly the last sentence

"And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why economists may not have the answers to everything, but when they unanimously agree you are about to drive off a cliff, it is probably worth paying attention."

Amen!

:applause:

and I've got Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, Christopher Knittel and every other working economist in sight saying she's wrong. Also all of my old econ professors that I emailed over the weekend, and my brother with his BS degree in econ, his MS in econometrics, his MS in banking and finance and his MBA (he's had an Obama sticker on his car since two days after the convention speech), and my sister in law, with her PhD in economics and her MPA. To get that kind of unanimity among the practitioners of this normally fractured fraternity is pretty amazing.

Sorry, but I think you've got your work cut out for you.

And, economic theories are indeed less precise than those in physics. But, they are hardly untested; the arguments between practicing economists take place over some pretty rarefied points, not over the basics of how stuff works. And, yes again, behavioral economics does a better job of explaining some kinds of consumer choice, but you might want to be a little careful, I think you'll find the behavioral folks suggesting that the 'gas tax holiday' is even a worse idea than the classicists do. Think overall fuel consumption, greenhouse gases and pollution vs. the family vacation.

What do you want to talk about? Lock in effects? Path dependence in the global economy?

Pick yer poison.

You don't even know what I was talking about do you?

Just so you know, Econ 101 fails.

Almost makes you think she's nothing but a paid shill for the campaign, doesn't it?

I love it when some idiot is unmasked while trying to prove how intelligent they are and Fredda, the pseudo-economist, did not let me down. :evilgrin:

.

Most likely because she can't.

What the hell are you doing here in GD-P? :)

Seriously though, that was an excellent post. I enjoyed that a lot. If I could understand it then almost anyone can.

Thanks!

It led me down to some thought experiments about other "soft" disciplines, where we don't have the same number of years (and education) being applied over the course of humanity...(We've studied the stars for pretty much all of known history, and yet, we don't even have 100 years of study into DNA. We're that naiive).

As a reverse thought experiment, how far along would physics be, if the planets behaved as erratically as humans do? What if gravity had "mood swings" (late nights at the pub don't count)?

She can only offer lies about knowing things. The actual knowledge escapes her.

:rofl: Fredda Weinberg? :rofl:

instigation... someone says go ahead and you slink off to the corner with a comment like that!!

of course, acting like you are 'the' authority on this and that we should all believe anything you say simply because you claim to be 'qualified' to talk about such things. HA!

you are not the only educated person on this board, tho seems you'd like to think you are.!!

So, O Wise Sage of the Intarwebs, who art smarter and more truthier than those puffed-up false prophets of academia, what will prevent the oil companies from raising prices and passing this "windfall profits tax" back to us little people?

I really don't see Shell and Exxon eating those losses for the sake of us little people.

At best, this is a shell game. :3

how will she stop Bush from vetoing it?

Figure that one out Einstein.

n/t

After all, so many economists with doctorates have dismissed it, I'd love to hear why they're all wrong.

The only time it does is when you're talking about medicine. In everything else, it just involves people who know how to play the game, acadamia is a crapshoot anyway. Economists think of things in the most abstract of terms, and most of them are in a position where they are not going to be affected by the consequences of their actions. This is not a dictatorship where, if an economic minister messes up, we put a bullet in his head.

And that's the point. Economists focus entirely on what is economically efficient, and the current trend is for that to move towards world trade. Personally, I prefer a world in which the rest of the world is starving if we're not going to be hurting, even if it is not efficient. Most economists say, it is more economically efficient to ship the jobs overseas, and that's the point. None of them are in danger of losing their job in the mill, none of them are in danger of their shrimp haul being invaded by similar products from China and Vietnam.

It is true, the gas tax reduction makes no sense economically. But politically, it makes all the sense in the world. Economists only think about the economics and theories and vague abstracteries because they will always have their job, and if this country ever tanks, they can always get a job as a finance minister. The millworker doesn't have the option. This is why economists don't usually get elected to office

And while I agree with you to an extent on the "efficient" nature of the profession by some, the same can be said of any profession on earth. There will always be some who make the rest look bad, but many economists actually do care about this country and the people in it. Putting every economist into the same basket is not very realistic as there are many, many who care very much. Paul Krugman is a good example.

As for the gas tax holiday making good political sense, we'll see. I certainly hope it does not.

an internal revolution, starting w/the acknowlegment that markets are not perfect disseminators of information. Now we have to handle irrational desires in a global economy and none of the classes I took give the students a clue. They learn what Wall Street needs them to know.

Elitist? Even my class in socialism forgot the proletariat.

It was one of the reasons Jefferson said we should have a revolution every several years.

Regardless, you are not explaining how Hillary's plan works.

And you should keep up w/the professionals. Then you'd know what is and isn't news to this "soft" science.

Please ... you're flogging a dead horse. Economics is not a strict science and doesn't claim to be. It's a "social science", just like sociology, psychology and my favorite, "political science".

Enough of this bogus argument. You have nothing to support.

I'm guessing that you either lied about having a BA in economics or you didn't do very well in it. You can't even begin to back up your assertion so you constantly try to change the subject.

FAIL!

I'm an Economics major, but I'm going to tell you flat out that if you get five economists in a room and you'll get 6 opinions, and all six are likely to be wrong. The economics community did not predict a recession in 2001 nor did it believe a housing bubble existed.

Obviously everyone has a different opinion. But when they are pretty much universally against you, that means something too.

One has to wonder why you're going into a field you have so little respect for.

let's get Main Street it's due. Few economists there ... mostly business majors.

You're not very good at economics, are you?

But it was very classy of you to throw in a little French. It almost makes up for your complete lack of knowledge on a subject where you claimed expertise.

The interns were well served, so I got my maternal instincts satisfied. Thanks for your sincere concern.

I asked you above but you don't seem to have seen it.

If you want another topic, start another thread.

Don't highjack mine.

That's not usual, but I'm not surprised.

that is amazing.

:hi:

There was a gas tax suspension in GA--in response, the vendors raised the price of gas. There was no noticeable difference in price at the pump. We ended up paying MORE once the gas tax was reinstated. Gov Perdue is a reckless jackass, but he really did mean well when he tried to lessen gas prices. It did not work. Hillary, on the other hand, is not sincere. This is a case of shameless, disgusting pandering.

The government eliminates an 18-cent per gallon tax for three months.

All that means is that the distributors no longer have to pay the tax. It does not mandate a lower pump price.

Looking at things realistically, the distributors would pocket some or all of the cut and pocket the difference...resulting in a taxpayer-funded bonus.

Even if the distributors passed along the entire 18-cent cut, the average savings would be less than $3/week.

...and this would result in an estimated $10 BILLION loss to our federal highway funds.


IF Clinton could get a bill passed that recouple the funds from "windfall profits"...and she could never do that...what would the net sum be? A $3/week savings for 3 months.


You're the degreed economist. Refute it.

Do you? The threat did no harm whatsoever and helped changed social attitudes. Stabilized prices for a decade.

There you go.

I honestly don't have your background in economics.

to their actions. They know * won't stop filling the national petroleum reserves or, worse yet from their perspective, tap into it to stabilize he market. So the bully pulpit is the best place to jawbone down the "professionals" who created this profit making bonanza.

From where I sit - and I did spent considerable time and effort to understand how Volker tamed stagflation - HRC is doing exactly what she should - and she's right about the profession I nearly entered.

Instead, I make an honest living developing software, but I'm still concerned about conditions, even if I'm not as vulnerable as I was decades ago.

Why is HRC doing exactly what she should? I'm not getting it.

She's claiming to be an economist and has "studied physics" but can't seem to simply explain how this "holiday" works. She claims to be an expert but can't do something so simple. Instead she just changes the subject repeatedly.

I posted a poll earlier asking anyone who thought it was a good idea to explain why yet not one person who supported it could offer up a reason. Sad.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5810283

with a focus on complex dynamic systems and simulated economies and ecosystems.

HRC is pandering. It isn't a question of whether or not some economists are "elitists". Or even whether economics is a hard science (it is).
It is that she is summarily dismissing the work of the very people WHO ADVISE HER. She is being hypocritical.

point I'm supporting, but have an agenda to push.

Never mind. I live in the real world, where people want to see politicans act. The Democrats are lucky to have HRC this silly season.

.

There's been a lot of effort to try to differentiate it from other social sciences, but it is not a hard science. Experiments cannot be repeated with the same result each time such as in physics and chemistry.

And I would do it again.

If I can model it (I DO) , and my models make verifiable predictions (THEY DO), it's a hard science. Not
as hard as physics, but harder than (20th century) psychology, because behavior in the aggregate is much easier to predict than behavior in the particular.

We have things we attempt to understand in economics through our models, but we have nowhere near the understanding of a physical science.

Many macroeconomic models break down in the face of the uncertainties we cannot model for. The models help us to understand what happens, but they certainly do not precisely forecast. I have seen so many long term forecasts from the most eminent economists fail to predict the direction of even a segment of the economy, much less the entirety of it. Certain general principles do hold, but it is hardly mathematically precise.

A case in point comes in the various attempts to model the financial markets. Decades have been spent attempting to do so and still they have all been utter failures. Statisticians assured us that the events of last August when the financial markets seized up were a "3 sigma event" meaning three standard deviations outside the mean or only a .3% chance of occurance. A similar shock to the markets hit again by November, again in January, and again in March with Bear Stearns.

If you are gonna make a proposal like a gas tax holiday, you better refer to someone who has more knowledge of this subject than you.

Although economists isn't an exact science, there are plenty of empirical studies done that can help aid policy decisions. Not all of economics is made up of voodoo theories.

DUers suddenly are great fans of economists. I have been lambasted for being a "cold economist" before when I criticize crap I see posted here. My how times change when the enemies do.

I respect economists who follow a progressive, long term philosophy. I do not respect, nor agree with, the followers of Rand like Greenspan.

The field has been ruined by ideology.

I've found that any economist talking about the short term is generally just looking to cash in on some get rich quick philosophy, but the ones who carefully look at the economy and chart out long term solutions to current issues, incorporating actual people in the mix, tend to get things right in general.

One thing I can't is a economists with an agenda. They just use it to justify their own beliefs, instead of actually seeking knowledge.

The whole point of studying it is to find out how the economy works in the real world so you can make better decisions. If you want to find a way to lower the price of gas, you better have some knowledge of how the economy works. Too many times, leaders mad bad policy decisions, with good intentions, just because they don't know the economic effects of their policies.

for example NAFTA and the bankruptcy reform both had economists cheering

And NAFTA would have been a good idea if the safeguards that Clinton promised had been delivered. Whether because of the repub takeover or lack of desire, they were never put in place. If they had followed the European Union model NAFTA could have been fantastic for all of us.

As for bankruptcy reform I don't know too many progressive economists who supported that.

by progressive means that its less science and more subjective.
Economists were supporting bankruptcy reform and deregulation.
Obviously there were some economists on both sides of those arguments, but its not an attack on science when you criticize economists. Its an attack on the assumptions

But you'd need a brain to figure that out -Hillary and McCain are two panderers who seem to believe no American has one.

Barack Obama, to his credit, is opposing this nutty idea. I suspect doing so will help him at the polls Tuesday. Hillary's not fooling anyone - except perhaps for John McCain.

Not to say economists are always right, as I'm not sure how much of science it really is (I fully expect to be told by someone though...this IS DU after all). But yes, her dismissal of them is very reminiscent of Bush and his dismissal of those who don't agree with his policies.

The only people who could possibly benefit from Clinton's "holiday" would be the oil companies and herself.

Why is she putting the desires of corporations and personal power above the people?

then it is so.
Cause I care about you and I will fight for you.

Econ 101. In dealing with a finite substance the price will rise until the consumer no longer feels the benefit of the product justifies it's cost. In the real world that means if people are currently paying $3.50/gallon for gasoline which includes $0.18/gallon tax, by removing the tax consumption will increase until the cost increases back to $3.50.

Because of this, we no longer have $9 billion going into jobs and infrastructure and we have increased consumption of oil which damages the environment.

ignoring the manipulation of the production and supply

Of course the oil cartels are manipulating the price but there's very little that congress is going to do about that. We've seen them in action already. The conglomerates know they have a free hand so the only power we have in this is that of consumption. If the gas tax is removed either the oil companies will not pass the reduction on to the consumer or consumption will rise to meet the preexisting price.

n/t

and there is educated guessing that goes on, but there is no established "correct" viewpoint in either.

But you wanted to jump in and act like you do.

There are established viewpoints on the basics of economy. Hillary is breaking the first rule that everyone knows.

Theory has two distinct meanings-- the colloquial usage, as in "It's my theory that Hillary is a panderer," and scientific theory, as in "theory of gravity." Unfortunately, as you just demonstrated, the two are often conflated. When people say "I have a theory about that," they usually think they are using the term scientifically, but they are actually misusing the term. A scientific theory is not a wild ass guess, or even a hypothesis having some support. A theory has tons and tons of data behind it, addresses all of the evidence available, and stands as best explanation available until some evidence comes along that causes it to be revised, or replaced with a new theory that fits all of the old and new data. In some cases there are multiple theories-- all address the data at hand adequately, but all but one (or maybe even all of them, if a better theory comes along) will eventually be disproven. So what do you mean when you say, "...there is only theory?"

have our economic inputs/stimuli/etc determined based on a program. All free countries would run the same way.

Obviously it's not that easy. The theories or schools that are most familiar are the Classical or Adam Smith view, The Marginalist

School which is is basically strict supply and demand based, The Institutionalist School which rejects the Classical view that the

individual is the most important, Keynesian School which sees government spending or lack thereof as a powerful determinant, The Marxist

School- the belief that all production belongs to labor because workers produce all value within society.

As more information becomes available new schools or theories emerge as changes in the economy cause rethinking and make existing

"economic theory obsolete. The new school eventually becomes popular until the next new thing comes along.

But saying "there's only theory" suggests that you think such theory is not useful. Is that correct?

Do you seriously believe that because some theories are incomplete models you shouldn't use them? Our theory of the atom is still incomplete-- should we throw away all the applications of the atom, which include what you're wearing, living in, driving, and so forth?

Or are you just talking about economic theory? If so, could you elaborate?

You-"But saying "there's only theory" suggests that you think such theory is not useful. Is that correct?"

Me- "no"

It seems to me that there are three possible explanations.

1. The person you are talking to hasn't read or comprehended your response.
2. The person you are talking to is an idiot.
3. You haven't explained yourself fully.

Here's a hint. I have a Ph.D. in one of the "hard", laboratory-based sciences, and have taught science and the idea of theory to people from grades K through graduate school. I have proven on numerous occassions that I know how to read and comprehend.

That leaves one possibility.

I'm getting the impression that you really just don't want to discuss the topic, which is fine, but makes me wonder why you are posting on a discussion board.

The reason I asked my previous question was to engage you, because I was interested in your thoughts. Some people might find that flattering, or maybe even intellectually stimulating. If that's not the case with you, please ignore what comes next. Is it economic theory that you don't find viable or all other theories? If the former, why? Is it because there are so many competing economic theories, or is it because it is not testable in the same way as a "hard" science? Or some other reason?

My husband's PhD is in one of the "softer" area of sciences (wildlife biology): it's difficult to do lab-based activities when you are dealing with endangered species or species that migrate halfway around the globe. He can (after jumping through numerous hoops) sometimes tag individuals to track them, but even when he is able to do so, most of his conclusions are based on correlations and statistical analysis. Does that mean his results are useless? I think not. We've been able to take the bald eagle off the endangered species list thanks to this type of work.

Another example is the weather. As you probably know, weather models are very incomplete, and there are numerous competing computer programs used to predict movement of weather systems. There is definitely a lot of room for improvement, but there will always be error in these models because, again, there are many variables that cannot be controlled (unlike a controlled laboratory experiment). Does that mean that your evening weathercast should forgo the use of these models? They may not be as good as we want, but they are definitely better than nothing, and they've saved lives.

Again, I am interested in your thoughts, assuming you want to have an actual discussion.

You: #103. Yes, that's how theories work.

But saying "there's only theory" suggests that you think such theory is not useful. Is that correct?


Me: #107. no.


You: 108. Seriously?

Do you seriously believe that because some theories are incomplete models you shouldn't use them? Our theory of the atom is still incomplete-- should we throw away all the applications of the atom, which include what you're wearing, living in, driving, and so forth?

Or are you just talking about economic theory? If so, could you elaborate?


You tell me, which is it:

1. The person you are talking to hasn't read or comprehended your response.
2. The person you are talking to is an idiot.
3. You haven't explained yourself fully.

I was asking you to elaborate on your rather cryptic one word answer. You say "there's only theory" but when I ask you what you mean by this and suggest possible explanations for such a statement you respond with "no." When I try to get you to explain, you say that if you have to explain yourself over and over this conversation will go nowhere. Simple one word answers are in no way redundant explanations. You claim "there's only theory," but are unwilling to explain what you mean by that. The only conclusion is that you really don't understand what scientific theory is. If that's the case, you are better off removing yourself from such conversations as you will only muddy the waters and display your ignorance.

the existence *of* any science that doesn't fit the furtherance of he, his family's, and his handlers stock portfolios. And to that extent bush does believe in economists. Just the ones that sustain those goals i.e. we'll just stop counting the people that have slipped off the unemployment rolls that way it won't look like we're so far in the hole; or bail out the top 1% and let the bottom 99 eat shit.

E-con-o-MISTS may be lovely folks here & there...but the application of esoteric economic principles for the benefit *of* elitists is a whole other matter. That's the level of interaction I think HRC was referring to. And at that level if economists aren't themselves elitist? Then they serve the elite.

As Fredda's posts above demonstrate, they've quit caring about doing the right thing, they just want to win. That is what bush* has done and now his appointments and policies reflect his naked ambition.

Based on what Hillary is doing now and her supporters are approving, why one earth should we believe the same pandering, non-expert policies wouldn't go into effect once she took office?

The Theory of Evolution and creationism (or should I say... "intelligent design" /end sarc) being taught in school. I am going to believe the person who has factual knowledge of the ToE instead of the bible toting cretard using the goddidit card.

experts? Who needs 'em? :P