Christina Romer: Good Democrat, Bad Economist
Christina Romer, President Obama's first chief of his Council of Economic Advisers, is now advocating tax hikes, saying that federal spending cuts would be worse for the economy than tax hikes. Coming from just any Democrat, this would not be news. This is news because Ms. Romer did an academic study, with her husband David that showed how harmful a tax increase would be to the economy.
I wrote about her original study, in which she concluded that a tax increase of 1% of GDP would cause a recession and then a permanent decrease in real GDP of 1.84%. She had also done previous academic studies which concluded fiscal stimuli are powerless in getting us out of recessions or depressions.
These Romer studies were solid academic studies. Her recent one on taxes was published in the American Economic Review, a peer-reviewed journal. It was based on years of data and accepted methods of economic modeling and statistical inference. This kind of study is the way economists earn PhDs.
Now Christina is trying to walk back her conclusions. But note she uses the forum of the New York Times for that, not a peer-reviewed academic journal. Look at how she justifies her new story.
"Our study, which examined only federal tax policy, found that conventional analysis underestimates the effect of tax changes on the economy substantially... If there were a similar study on government spending, it would likely show that spending cuts also have larger effects than conventionally believed."
You've got to be kidding. "If there were a similar study on government spending"? She is basing her new opinion on a study that was not done! A non-study trumps a study!
She did academic studies that showed that a "stimulus" would not stimulate. Then she advocated for a stimulus. She did an academic study showing how harmful a tax increase would be on the economy, then she advocated for a tax increase.
This shows us how the world works. These economists get credentialed by doing legitimate academic work. But once they enter the policy and political world, that all goes out the window. Their policy recommendations have nothing to do with evidence or accepted methods of inference. Their policy recommendations are all about politics. In short, they simply sell out.
Who has more influence? An academic economist who gets published in a peer-reviewed journal, or a credentialed economist who says in the New York Times exactly what Democrats want to hear? I think Paul Krugman could provide the answer.
![](https://s3.amazonaws.com/ssl-intgr-net/tags/7_74_19.gif)
Ad Free / Commenting Login
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- No, Trump Does Not Have to Abide by a Mythical 'Judicial Supremacy'
- Rush Was Right About Illegal Immigration
- The President's Trap
- Theories of Knowledge and the Media
- Tucker Carlson Needs Help
- Gaza Gaza Gaza
- Is Stargate a Gateway to the Digital Gulag?
- After USAID, America Will Never Be the Same
- The Debt Ceiling: Trump's Next Target?
- Trump FTC Must Stop Biden’s Prescription Drug Madness
Blog Posts
- Finding value that others ignore is Donald Trump’s superpower
- Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport: Where Convenience Trumps Safety
- City council of Worcester, MA votes to become an LGBTQ++ ‘sanctuary city’
- ‘Green’ politician vying for Germany’s chancellorship makes a ridiculous spectacle trying to christen a new ship with ‘safe’ contraption
- How much power does Elon Musk have?
- When it takes 12 days to get your mail...
- Are the Gazans tired of winning yet?
- Melting down over DOGE
- Massive fraud is exposed by Musk and Trump and the left is furiously melting down! Does this not reveal their consciousness of guilt?
- Our Conservative Climate Caucus
- Will POTUS be happy with SCOTUS?
- Why do we treat murdering a pregnant woman differently from abortion?
- Learning about Abe
- Liz Cheney’s never-ending farewell tour: now featuring JD Vance
- Does President Trump have to come over there to Los Angeles, again?