Tuesday, August 2, 2016

An Economist Totally in Hillary Clinton's Pocket

Hillary is great!

Mark Zandi must be shooting for head of the Council of Economic Advisers in a Clinton Administration. 

He just put out an analysis so insane that Hillary Clinton is trumpeting it across her social media outlets.

First, it must be recognized that presidents don't create jobs in an economy. High minimum wage laws and other regulations such as Obamacre can mess with job opportunities but that is about it. Remove these barriers to  jobs and unemployment will go down. So if a president is involved in removing these barriers it is a plus.

Any other calculations that show how many jobs a president "creates" are pure nonsense. Given that Hillary is for a higher minimum wage and Obamacare, there is nothing in a Clinton Administration that would increase jobs.

But along comes Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics.

Here's how Hillary's web page presents his recent "analysis":

Friday, economist Mark Zandi—one of John McCain’s former economic advisors—released a report on the impact of Hillary’s economic proposals. The topline results: 
Under Hillary's plan, our economy would create 10.4 million jobs in her first term alone. 
Said Zandi, “The upshot of our analysis is that Secretary Clinton’s economic policies when taken together will result in a stronger U.S. economy under almost any scenario.”
Last month, Zandi did a similar analysis of Trump’s economic policies. He found that Trump’s plan would have a real and lasting negative impact for our economy and the American people—including a “lengthy recession” and the loss of 3.5 million jobs.

1 comment:

  1. There goes the economist humor - using a decimal point. Hillary's plan, according to Zandi, will create not 10 million jobs, but 10.4 million jobs. Just what constants (I'm being sarcastic of course) is Zandi using in his neat and tidy model to arrive at such a precise number? And if he can tell us down to one decimal point, why not go further? If he's confident in his "scientific" calculations, why not specify the job growth number down to the exact figure?