2 నవంబర్, 2026

"As a lifelong economist, I am distraught at what is happening to my profession. What I observe is economists losing status."

"Economists used to be highly respected figures, and nowadays, even when they are not pilloried, they are often simply ignored. There is an ongoing bipartisan flight from economic reasoning. And as voters go to the polls this week, neither Republicans nor Democrats are offering anything like a rigorous plan for economic growth...."

Writes Tyler Cowen, in "No Matter Who Wins the Midterms, Economics Will Lose/Both parties used to craft their policies with the help of the best economic minds. Now they are driven almost entirely by politics and vibes" (Free Press).

98 కామెంట్‌లు:

Mike (MJB Wolf) చెప్పారు...

Poor baby. Giving up on the Scientific Method was a poor choice for a “science” but embracing stupid Keynseian nonsense was even stupider.

rehajm చెప్పారు...

Yup.

Mike (MJB Wolf) చెప్పారు...

Any economist with big enough balls to say “the US government doesn’t have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem” can earn respect among Americans but will be pilloried by the ascientific drooling “journalists” who report on economics, like Tyler.

rehajm చెప్పారు...

…so our congressional leadership abandons Smith and Hayek and Friedman and Sowell and instead adopt the kindergarten model of economics where money grows on trees and everyone who shows up gets an equal sized piece of cake regardless of contribution…

baghdadbob చెప్పారు...

Nonsense. Trump's economic plan includes lower taxes and regulations, remedying trade imbalances by negotiating (and/or tariffing) most favored nation pricing and equitable deals, reducing government's size, waste and fraud, bringing manufacturing back to the USA, insuring strong domestic production of energy and critical materials, among other measures. This is likely a media attempt to portray this administration as clueless and without a coherent plan.

rehajm చెప్పారు...

...Bessent is the best policy maker government has had in a couple generations…

rehajm చెప్పారు...

…just about all the rest of them attended the Liz Warren MBA program…

Saint Croix చెప్పారు...

Instead of “Cry For Me, Argentina,” we can sing, “Cry For Me, Elite Education.”

You’d think elite Ivy Leaguers might have some idea, some clue why their elite status is roundly mocked and ignored. One party states produce horrible science, horrible art, horrible economics, horrible laws. That is because your one party state is so politicized.

rehajm చెప్పారు...

…truth baghdadbob. Democrats spend years developing a big bloated tax and spend program for everything then the chastise Republicans for not having and big bloated tax and spend program for everything…

Jersey Fled చెప్పారు...

Key takeaway:

“Economists used to be highly respected figures, and nowadays, even when they are not pilloried, they are often simply ignored. There is an ongoing bipartisan flight from economic reasoning.”

I taught economics at the university level for eight years after I retired from my real job.

The first night of each class I told my students that we were there to teach, discuss, and learn Economics. And what they heard from politicians and the news wasn’t economics.

rhhardin చెప్పారు...

A profession doesn't recover from Paul Krugman.

rehajm చెప్పారు...

Principles of Economics, available thru the Amazon portal. Makes a great Christmas gift for your representatives….

rehajm చెప్పారు...

…funny that, Krugman’s contributions were valuable, unfortunately he’s also a partisan hack willing to shit on his colleagues and profession for the perceived advancement of his politics…

Kai Akker చెప్పారు...

Who needs economists when the Fed will print money every whipstitch?

Sebastian చెప్పారు...

"Both parties used to craft their policies with the help of the best economic minds." Did they really? Hmm. Anyway, the indictment seems too broad--several Trump policies accord with Econ 101. Basic problem is spending. Economists would regain stature if they hammered that point. But as partisans, they won't.

rehajm చెప్పారు...

…and we all mock Krugman but on the xy graph of fancy degrees/stupid ideas Larry Summers is the extreme top right outlier…

rehajm చెప్పారు...

…and we all mock Krugman but on the xy graph of fancy degrees/stupid ideas Larry Summers is the extreme top right outlier…

RCOCEAN II చెప్పారు...

Cowan is in favor of "Free Trade" and "Open Borders" no matter what. Because somehow no matter what happens or bad the ramifications, its supposed to be good for the GDP in the "long run".

So now he's sad, because no buys that bullshit anymore.

Lazarus చెప్పారు...

He's only realizing that now? The "paradigm" paradigm works pretty well in economics. Economists follow the prevailing "paradigm" until it doesn't work and then they look like fools. That happened in the 1930s and again in the 1970s. It's happened since though I couldn't say when. The country is actually doing well now economically, inflation aside, but the long years in which we let industry decay and leave made us distrust economists and their predictions.

Bob Boyd చెప్పారు...

To be fair to Cowen, he is a species of libertarian and is associated with the Austrian School.
That doesn't necessarily mean he shouldn't be pilloried or ignored.

Peachy+2 చెప్పారు...

We inherited the largest hot mess of economic nightmare and ILLEGAL open border grift - from Joe Mob Biden.

RCOCEAN II చెప్పారు...

The other point is that just because someone has an Econ PHD, doesn't mean (1) they economic advice isn't based on their personal politics or (2) they know what they are talking about.

The Economists who have MSM Columns are almost universally partisan liberal/leftist who've been proven wrong time and time again. So, nobody cares what the X-burts say.

RCOCEAN II చెప్పారు...

I'm not interested in being "fair" to Cowan.

RideSpaceMountain చెప్పారు...

It doesn't help that most economists will explain tomorrow why the thing they predicted yesterday didnt happen today.

Money Manger చెప్పారు...

Sorry Tyler. Blame Krugman and Stiglitz, Acemoglu and Diamond. And then start in on Piketty.

When economists subordinate objective research standards to preferred political goals, expect complete loss of status.

RideSpaceMountain చెప్పారు...

Why so Straussian Tyler?

RideSpaceMountain చెప్పారు...

Guy should be more concerned with getting pilloried on his own site. He's been getting thrashed lately.

Bob Boyd చెప్పారు...

Cowen says, "Americans were used to deferring to elites, who had won World War II for them"
Okay, he should definitely be pilloried and then ignored.

CJinPA చెప్పారు...

I used to be a staunch fiscal conservative. Then I noticed that voters don't care. My candidates usually lost.

Also, when the debates are "Does our nation really deserve to enforce its border laws?" and "Should we abolish police departments?" it becomes a matter of national survival, and avoiding economic catastrophe gets kicked down the road.

Josephbleau చెప్పారు...

Economics is not controversial, it just depends on what objective function you are optimizing. Minimizing unemployment and maximizing growth within your Nation State, and letting all the other Nation States have their own priorities that you can react to in your interest is a great objective.

Aggie చెప్పారు...

The dots that haven't been connected yet are the effects from all of the entitlements fraud that are being quashed, payments being stopped, monies being recovered, fraud uncovered, money returned. I haven't seen this totaled up yet and represented as % of budget. I need to see this to understand whether it's a drop in the bucket or a substantial piece of pie. And then I would like to see a projection of the trend over the next few years, including growth in tax revenue because of economic growth.

What we have lost (my view) is a sense of reasonable forecast and backward-looking verification that forecasts were in line.

I think Scott Bessent is doing a fantastic job.

planetgeo చెప్పారు...

The most important lessons in economics aren't learned in university courses but at certain times in real life. One of the most important lessons was provided in 1929, and an even bigger and more important lesson will likely be provided around 2029 or not very long after.

Jersey Fled చెప్పారు...

Further to my post above, the two Presidents in my lifetime who ranked the best in terms of their understanding of economics were JFK and Ronald Reagan. Two different parties and two different times but each knew what to do and how to do it.

There is no close third.

CJinPA చెప్పారు...

rehajm said...
"Democrats spend years developing a big bloated tax and spend program for everything then the chastise Republicans for not having and big bloated tax and spend program for everything…"

And Republicans who wanted to *reduce the INCREASE in spending* were accused of "slashing programs" by Dems withe the cynical support of national media.

Trump said, "F that. Voters punish candidates who care about deficits so I won't."

RCOCEAN II చెప్పారు...

In the real world, what is the best economic policy is based on the a detailed analysis of the economic structure of the country and looking at the numbers. There's a lot of micro analysis.

Economists that appear in the Newspapers are almost all theory. They have grand theories based on macro analysis. And its usually worthless.

Josephbleau చెప్పారు...

One of the most important economic principles is in the incenti

Lazarus చెప్పారు...

"As a lifelong economist ..."? Calculating GDP even in diapers?

Haven't we been robustly growing for some time now? "Rigorous plans" don't survive the business cycle and harsh confrontations with reality. Moreover, by the time any administration or Congress can put a "rigorous plan" into effect it has been so stuffed with goodies for the special interests that the plan's original purpose has been forgotten. Remember Biden's "Inflation Reduction Act"?

Josephbleau చెప్పారు...

One of the most important economic principles is in the incentivization of capital investment to maintain jobs and growth by increasing productivity. This is the failure of socialism, which values any labor over effective labor.

Josephbleau చెప్పారు...

A peve of mine is politicians’ distortion of capitalism, socialism, and communism. These are economic systems. They are not systems of love, peace, justice, or equality. The moral is the moral, separate from economics. Economics is a tool for organizing production of human needs, not a playground for sociologists.

Peachy+2 చెప్పారు...

Democrats pretend to care about "affordability" - while they scream for more taxes.

Temujin చెప్పారు...

I think he's mostly right. It's all a mess. And the truth is in the numbers. National Debt Clock.

Saint Croix చెప్పారు...

Economics and math are a couple of fields that make my eyes roll up over my head. I am very impressed with Scott Bessant, though. I remember, a while back, Argentina ran into some trouble, and their free market president asked the USA for some help. I was like, "oh shit, what's going to happen?" And Bessant was like, "Sure, here you go, not a problem." And the damn problem in Argentina disappeared, and he's a genius down there again.

I was like, good one, even though it was all kind of over my head. I also liked how Bessant had lunch in a Cheesecake Factory, and he famously offered the lawyer and socialist Elizabeth Warren some economic lessons.

Not my field but I have a lot of confidence in our top money man. (He made his money the same way Soros did, and in fact worked for Soros).

Kai Akker చెప్పారు...

--- I have a lot of confidence in our top money man. (He made his money the same way Soros did, and in fact worked for Soros).

This gives you confidence in him?

bagoh20 చెప్పారు...

$40 trillion in debt does not recommend the past use of economists in government.

A politician needs a fiscal responsibility plan like a fish needs a bicycle.

Oso Negro చెప్పారు...

Lost me at “As a lifelong economist”. What, was he drawing Laffer Curves on the inside of his amniotic sac? But perhaps years of reading “As a lifelong Republican” informs the visceral reaction.

Big Mike చెప్పారు...

Across all of the Econ departments in all of the universities in the United States of America, how many teach a course in “Why socialism and communism have slways failed, and slways will”?

RideSpaceMountain చెప్పారు...

Those who can't economist, teach economics.

Rocco చెప్పారు...

rehajm said...
“…so our congressional leadership abandons Smith and Hayek and Friedman and Sowell…”

If you mentioned those names, I think most of our Congress critters would think of Will, Salma, Sam, and Penei first.

(And he’s Penei Sewell, not Sowell.)

Rocco చెప్పారు...

"What I observe is economists losing status."

“Experts are losing status,” experts say. Maybe Paul Krugman should write a column on it.

bagoh20 చెప్పారు...

Shouldn't all economists be filthy rich?

Howard చెప్పారు...

Economics hasn't been respected since forever.

"The dismal science" is a derogatory name for the science of economics, coined by Scottish essayist Thomas Carlyle in 1849.[1]

Bob Boyd చెప్పారు...

"Americans were used to deferring to elites, who had won World War II for them"

That sentence just says it all. What an ass.

RJ చెప్పారు...

As was already noted: Paul Krugman and other lunatic economists poisoned the well.

rehajm చెప్పారు...

…many of them are- immediately- Siegel, Merton, Scholes, Riccardo…Samuelson, Solow Keynes are/were…

rehajm చెప్పారు...

…there was that little group of Nobels that lent their names to that hedge fund that moved next door to the stock exchange servers on long island to front-run trades, they made out okay…

Greg The Class Traitor చెప్పారు...

"Economics" that says that tariffs for the US are bad, offshoring all production to our enemies is good, and importing foreign "workers" is good is garbage that isn't worth listening to.

So suck on it, Tyler. So long as you promote enriching corrupt thugs, over enriching all, or at least all those willing to work, Americans, you don't have anything worth listening to

Hombre చెప్పారు...

Democrats corrupt everything including economics. E.g., "Milton Friedman isn't running the show anymore." - QuidProJoe Biden.

rehajm చెప్పారు...

…it’s fun to make fun of economists but they like to make fun of you, too. See principle number 3…

RideSpaceMountain చెప్పారు...

"Shouldn't all economists be filthy rich?"

That's why they teach.

Patrick Henry was right! చెప్పారు...

Growth is 4.3%. So high the Fed is using it as a pretext to refuse to lower interest rates. TDS.

Ficta చెప్పారు...

Nobody likes "dismal".

Zavier Onasses చెప్పారు...

There IS "a rigorous plan for economic growth" readily to hand. It is the Free Market Economy; aka, absence of Centrally Controlled Economy. To the extent that professional "economists" view their profession as being Central Planners, they are bound to be disappointed.

Zavier Onasses చెప్పారు...

There is "a rigorous plan for economic growth" readily to hand - the Free Market economy - the absence of Central Control. To the extent that "economists" view their roll as being controllers of the economy, they are bound to be disappointed.

Saint Croix చెప్పారు...

Kai,

Actually, the opposite. I would never hire anybody who worked for Soros. I would assume they were a raging socialist.

My theory on this is Bessant is the genius who shorted the pound. Made billions for Soros. And felt guilty as shit when Soros spent so much money fucking our country up. So Bessant went to Trump and asked to make amends. And Trump gave him the opportunity.

Trump’s cabinet is the best of my lifetime.

bagoh20 చెప్పారు...

""Americans were used to deferring to elites, who had won World War II for them"

Wow!

William చెప్పారు...

My understanding of quantum physics is that nobody understands quantum physics. There's Newtonian physics and quantum physics. I think a great deal of economics has more in common with quantum physics than Newtonian physics, but economists lack the humility of quantum physicists.....Food is a basic human right. It is reprehensible that people grow and sell food for profit. We need the economies of scale that large scale collective farms offer and state run cooperatives to distribute the bountiful crops those collective farms raise......There was a point in time where you could find lots of economists to agree with that argument. I suppose a lot of them still do, but they're more circumspect about it.

Saint Croix చెప్పారు...

Bessant is a great economist who is not a teacher. So he is obscenely rich. The worst economists are poor, and teach their students to be angry and poor.

RideSpaceMountain చెప్పారు...

Tyler is a big believer in "elites". Therefore he should know how much he's contributed to "elite overproduction". After all, as an economist, who better to understand how much more he gets of what he incentivizes.

Saint Croix చెప్పారు...

The dumbest idea is Krugman’s $1 trillion coin. Just print more money! He thinks like a criminal.

Lem Vibe Bandit చెప్పారు...

This guy, belittling vibes, gives me bad vibes.

Wince చెప్పారు...

"Writes Tyler Cowen in... (Free Press)."

The paywall at the link proves the old economist's adage: "there's no such thing as a 'Free Press'."

loudogblog చెప్పారు...

"neither Republicans nor Democrats are offering anything like a rigorous plan for economic growth"

I don't think that it's a good plan, but the Republicans have been quite vocal about growing the economy by supporting the tech companies that are doing AI.

rehajm చెప్పారు...

'Growth is 4.3%. So high the Fed is using it as a pretext to refuse to lower interest rates. TDS.'

...growth doesn't cause inflation...

Mike (MJB Wolf) చెప్పారు...

Until Tyler writes an article explaining how every American economist save three predicted economic disaster and collapse when the Tariffs went into effect, endless stupid Smoot-Hawley takes on X.

They were all 100% incorrect.

In fact the tariffs did exactly as advertised by Trump, they spurred foreign investment in the USA on a scale never seen before. This massive investment in manufacturing has led to the largest boom since the dawn of the Dotcom era in 2000. Except this expansion has legs because manufacturing requires hard investments, years long returns, hiring to fill new positions. Just shy of 1M jobs were added in AUG-SEP. So far this year millions in new jobs and 400,000 government workers downsized.

But wait. There's more! The expansion will continue and after the election the news idiots won't be able to snowball people with "horrible economy" news because it's too damned obvious that Trump's Boom has arrived. Only the rabid barking of running democrats has been able to keep the false "bad econ" idea floating so long. And they never ever had a plan to help it anyway. So why vote for the losers that brought you Joe Biden?

Mike (MJB Wolf) చెప్పారు...

Real wages growing faster than any time since the post-WW11 boom.

Mike (MJB Wolf) చెప్పారు...

Rents and mortgages dropping in all major markets as the 8 million exiting illegals free up homes for actual Americans to rent.

Mike (MJB Wolf) చెప్పారు...

Manufacturing expanding at the highest rate ever for three straight months and no slowing down in the windshield.

Mike (MJB Wolf) చెప్పారు...

In absolute terms Americans are earning higher wages than ever with typical household income reaching a record* high.

[All of this without ANY votes from Democrats for the most part]

*CBS news: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/census-income-data-pandemic-levels/

Rabel చెప్పారు...

From Mike's CBS link -

"While the new data indicates that Americans' incomes have continued to climb, it also shows that the typical household in 2025 earned only about 2.5% more than in 2019."

Yeah, but here's the problem -

"The U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI-U, all items) has risen by approximately 31–32% since 2019."

Static Ping చెప్పారు...

Part of the reason economists are ignored is they fail to understand the geopolitical aspect of economics. Yes, it may make more sense economically for the world economy to let country A do X and country B do Y, but it does not when X is absolutely necessary for B's survival and A hates B. Nor does it make much sense for a country to be 95%+ service industry, which essentially means the country produces nothing of value and those services can be easily relocated. Nor does it make sense to outsource your food supply, if you can at all avoid it.

Greg The Class Traitor చెప్పారు...

"neither Republicans nor Democrats are offering anything like a rigorous plan for economic growth"

Bullshit

A: First, you have to correctly define "economic growth". bringing wealth to foreigners is not meaningful or worthwhile "economic growth". So if the economy stays flat, but we deport 1 million foreigners, that's real growth.

Whereas if the economy grows 5%, but all the growth income goes to "immigrants", then that is NOT "economic growth"

B: The Republican plan:
1: Deport illegals, lowering rents and housing costs for Americans, and raising wages / cutting unemployment for Americans
2: Impose tariffs to force manufacturing to come back to the US, leading to more jobs and higher wages for Americans
3: Cut visas, esp "employment" visas, so Americans get more jobs, and there's fewer people on welfare.

Only an American hating loser hates that

Known Unknown చెప్పారు...

Economists use models and game theory which has rules to constantly describe real life which has not quite the same boundaries and are always surprised when they are wrong. They know that Gaussian variance is not enough to describe how things work but they refuse to teach economics and statistics any other way.

They assume rational actors but humans are always irrational and post-rational.

Bruce Hayden చెప్పారు...

""Americans were used to deferring to elites, who had won World War II for them"

And then COID-19 came around, and we found that most of the “experts”:were TDS addled a

jim చెప్పారు...

Now that the silly comments about Sowell, Laffer, and Hayek are petering out ...

I was an economics grad student in the late 1970s. Orthodoxy was in, I was tolerated because I could do the math and computer work (for the bosses that is), dropped out when my wife bagged med school and I had to support a family, and found out that computer nerds got paid pretty well.

Economists of the 1930s and 1940s were responsible for the incredible post war recovery of the US and Europe. This was Keynesian. They and their hangers-on rode that success through 1980, when the world shifted under their feet. Keynes has been fatally watered down by a global economy. The next generation of well-known economists, Krugman etal, are mostly not practicing economists. They did some economics early on and then became whatever; journalist, politico, influencer. The run of the mill academic economist introduces undergrads to various excellent theories from 100 to 200 years ago, and goes back to writing very narrow microeconomics articles: some small idea backed by reams of questionable math ignored by everyone.

The mission of economics was to make sense of mass economic behavior and trends. This was mostly accomplished over 100 years ago. Keynes brought it to its destination: a seemingly workable government-managed economy, like it or not. But this destination was not inherently stable. It broke down in the face a true, global market economy. Those currently tasked with managing economies are bankers, like Bessent, not economists.

While I think there are still economists doing good work (at the Fed particularly), economics today is a void. Nothing new to say. The (big) bankers learned what economics has to offer and added very pragmatic experience. No wonder economist s feel ignored.

Economics as an intellectual discipline still fascinates me, personally. I just wish it was alive.


"Those who can't economist, teach economics." Yup

rehajm చెప్పారు...

“Now that the silly comments about Sowell, Laffer, and Hayek are petering out ...”

…’lets fire up three or four stupid references to Keynes!!!’

RideSpaceMountain చెప్పారు...

@jim, It is alive wherever two humans interact in a way that exchanges value, think John Nash's Nobel-winning "Equilibrium". Like you, that's where the fascination still lies for me. In game theory. Especially the game and economic theory of warfare.

Jersey Fled చెప్పారు...

“ Across all of the Econ departments in all of the universities in the United States of America, how many teach a course in “Why socialism and communism have slways failed, and slways will”?

There was a chapter on the subject in every popular textbook that I know of. I supplemented the texts with comparisons of North/South Korea and East/West Germany (this was just before reunification). Both countries split in half after WW II, one free market and one communist. Same people and culture, two different economics systems. Massive difference in outcomes by virtually any social or economic measure you can think of.

Jersey Fled చెప్పారు...

“ Across all of the Econ departments in all of the universities in the United States of America, how many teach a course in “Why socialism and communism have slways failed, and slways will”?

There was a chapter on the subject in every popular textbook that I know of. I supplemented the texts with comparisons of North/South Korea and East/West Germany (this was just before reunification). Both countries split in half after WW II, one free market and one communist. Same people and culture, two different economics systems. Massive difference in outcomes by virtually any social or economic measure you can think of.

rehajm చెప్పారు...

…here’s the tale of the tape across my desk this morning- US Q3 GDP growth 3.4 percent, PCE price up 0.5 percent in Sept, yoy inflation running 3.4 percent, spending up 0.5 percent in Sept, consumer confidence index up from 84.2 to 91.7 in October, unemployment still hovering at record lows Q3 employment cost index at a cycle low 3.4 percent…

jim చెప్పారు...

@rejahm: did you understand my references to Keynes? Was he not influential for several decades?

Ampersand చెప్పారు...

The problem with signing on to close fidelity to economic reasoning is that it's like signing on to feminism. You've signed a blank check. Because economic reasoning and feminism are both vaporous thought clouds, someone is ALWAYS going to be able to credibly say that you failed to live up to the ideology that you claim to be governed by.

Jim at చెప్పారు...

*neither Republicans nor Democrats are offering anything like a rigorous plan for economic growth...."*

Who wants to tell him why his profession is losing status?

rehajm చెప్పారు...

*There was a chapter on the subject in every popular textbook that I know of*

…there was in mine. For a humorous good take PJ
O’Rourke’s Eat The Rich. Via Amazon portal…

James K చెప్పారు...

Sure, Keynes was influential for decades. So was Marx. That doesn’t make either of them correct in their analyses. It just means that politicians and dictators found them helpful. There’s serious research that suggests that the policies inspired by Keynes actually prolonged the Great Depression.

Bruce Hayden చెప్పారు...

What is often forgotten is that Keynes was talking about how to get out of the Great Depression. There was something called the Liquidity Trap. The idea appeared to be that if you got into one, the way out is through government spending, even deficit spending. And esp if the money was spent building infrastructure. Hence, all the WPA and CCC spending in our national parks and monuments, TVA, and even the HooverDam a couple miles away.

No surprise, that the Dems took this and used it for generations as their justification for spending. It wasn’t that long ago, the Economic Genius Nancy Pelosi was predicting a 5x or 6x Keynesian multiplier for all the money that Obama wanted to spend. Cash For Clunkers, etc. idiotic. Absent a true Liquidity Trap, the Keynesian Multiplier has been known since Nixon to empirically be less than one. The government cannot spend money as efficiently as the private sector. And the bigger, more complex, the private sector is, the worse the government is in allocating resources.

But there is an economic rationale for governmental control when its economy is rudimentary. A country needs to accumulate enough capital, before it can take off. With the traditional high birth rate, the population will increase faster than the rate of capital investment. Something akin to Keynes’ Liquidity Trap. The solution then is for t.he government to take over control of the economy, and essentially starve the populace a bit, with the excess going to capital formation. It does work. We saw it work with China, then Vietnam. And, yes, this was behind China’s disastrous One Child policy. But there is a country has to give up control when it reaches the point where it’s Capital base exceeds its population growth. And esp communist countries cannot let go of their power. And continue to misallocate resources at a higher and higher rate.

JAORE చెప్పారు...

The path back to respect for this "science" is to stop ignoring evidence repeatedly.

Alec Rawls చెప్పారు...

Trump is not "offering anything like a rigorous plan for economic growth"? That might be the stupidest I've seen in a couple of hours.

Rustygrommet చెప్పారు...

Jim. Face it. If it wasn't for Hitler we'd still have been in a depression in the 50s.

కామెంట్‌ను పోస్ట్ చేయండి

Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.