Tim Cavanaugh | December 10, 2004
Jacob Sullum bids a fond farewell to Gregory Mankiw, the President's chief economic advisor.
Reason needs your support. Please donate today!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
(310) 367-6109
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|12.10.04 @ 1:14PM|#
Jake, I think you missed Kemp's point: Not that the guy is telling the truth, but that his truth-telling will enable the anti-privitization goons on the left to demagogue the issue to death... or at least give them more ammo.
|12.10.04 @ 1:17PM|#
"ultimately endangering the Republican congressional majority"
Good thing we have our priorities straight.
|12.10.04 @ 2:25PM|#
I disagree with the whole retirement age-life expectancy thing. I think the recent increase was reasonable. But personally, I'm a musician. It's physical work, and I'll be lucky if my body holds out 'til I'm 60. If I have to go into my 70s, I'm screwed. AARP likes to always show people who are 70 jogging and lifting weights, but the reality is that the majority of 70 year olds who are still productive workers are not doing hard physical labor.
Of course, the general premise of the article is entirely correct. I just want to mention though that when they talk about raising the retirement age again, I get real nervous.
drf|12.10.04 @ 7:02PM|#
mankiw is not my favorite economist - he is of the "salt water" variety that leans more keynesian (mit, harvard, stanford, but also Northwestern)... and is in contrast with "fresh water" schools, u of c....
i don't think that the demand side policies advocated by mankiw and bush are the right direction, as i feel that a stricter supply side, including spending controls, actual free trade (in stark contrast to some of the games played by the president), and regulations (viz: small business regulations at the end of clinton's era), etc. while the economy seems to be moving well in some directions, spending, falling currency, and pork flying around are worrying.
that aside, he has two other gaffes in his most recent edition of "macroeconomics" (junior-senior year level) in which he supports his demand side views. just because he uttered some evident, broadly accepted economic principles, check out what he says about the demand side stimulus checks and compare that to other models and what happened. then decide.
knobboy|12.10.04 @ 11:24PM|#
Point of order, Senator: Mr. Sullum states that "the Social Security Trustees estimate that by 2018 payroll tax revenue will no longer cover benefits."
However, the link provided is not to a report by the "Social Security Trustees", or any other trustee at all. In fact, it is a study by one Andrew J. Rettenmaier, Executive Associate Director of the Private Enterprise Research Center at Texas A&M University.
The actual report by the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds (otherwise known as "The 2004 OASDI Trustees Report"), may be found here .