Paul Krugman kommenterar den ekonomiska rapport som fyra ekonomer från Camp Romney har publicerat som hävdar att Obamas policys endast försämrar återhämtningen i den amerikanska ekonomin. Och han håller inte tillbaka sin kritik:
”The big story of the week among the dismal science set is the Romney campaign’s white paper on economic policy, which represents a concerted effort by three economists — Glenn Hubbard, Greg Mankiw, and John Taylor — to destroy their own reputations. (Yes, there was a fourth author, Kevin Hassett. But the co-author of “Dow 36,000″ doesn’t exactly have a reputation to destroy).
And when I talk about destroying reputations, I don’t just mean saying things I disagree with. I mean flat-out, undeniable professional malpractice. It’s one thing to make shaky or even demonstrably wrong arguments. It’s something else to cite the work of other economists, claiming that it supports your position, when it does no such thing — and don’t take my word for it, listen to the protests of the cited economists.”
Ezra Klein i Washington Post tog studien vid orden och kommer till följande slutsats:
”So, that’s three economists named in the Romney paper, not one of whom would sign on to the interpretation the Romney paper gave to their work.”
”So even the studies that the Romney campaign’s economists handpicked to bolster their case don’t prove what the Romney campaign says they prove. And some of the key policy recommendations that flow from those studies are anathema to the Romney campaign. And in perhaps the key policy area highlighted by these studies, the Romney campaign doesn’t have a formal policy. If this is the best they can do in support of their economic plan, well, it’s not likely to quiet the critics.”
Aahh, economists, schmonomists.