Back when David Warsh was economics columnist for the Boston Globe (before the NYTimes bought the Globe), he wrote a column on the things about which economists agree. He said that the idea that economists never agree on anything is a myth. It's just that all the things they agree on violate liberal orthodoxy, so they are not reported.

Warsh now has a website: http://www.economicprincipals.com

Someone correct me if I'm wrong; the Republicans (in general) are for 1) agricultural subsidies 2) agree with everyone else that social security is headed for rocky times, and prefer getting rid of it as opposed to just raising the age 3) enforcing one-sided trade agreements (take your pick) that give American-based companies the legal means to exploit under-developed debt-ridden nations 4) against raising energy taxes.
So the only real thing left are school vouchers and outsourcing. Ok, you got me there. Why wouldn't they; a good number of them get paid to draw graphs that justify those kind of policies.
In addition, I can't but seem puzzled that OJ respects the position of a group of people who work for a university. I thought you hated PhDs?
I would like to see a lot more of these concensus studies; You got one with biologists and mechanisms for the evolution of life on earth?

Raising the age won't do it alone.

People need to assume the risk, they'll save more themselves instead of relying on others.

No, the next trade agreement is a surreptitious way of ditching ag subsidies while avoiding responsibility for it. Other nations benefit far m,ore from trade agreements than we do, because our trade is already so free compared to theirs. That's why fair trade is a Democrat issue.

No, the President cynically uses the idea of SS being in trouble in order to try and effect a wiser policy: private accounts.

No, the President wants to transition from income taxation to taxing comsumption. That will raise energy taxes. He, of course, opposes simply raising taxes on gasoline.

You're confusing PHds generally with the Humanities specifically. Literature, History, Biology, Sociology, etc. are notorious hokum. Math and hard sciences are benign enough. Of course, periodically administrations try to politicize their econ departments, but that just drives off serious professors and students, so is fairly self-correcting.

In this case, the economists are simply wrong. Raising the SS retirement age is NOT a fix, in that it is merely a massive "benefit cut" for the poor (who die sooner).

Any economist who doesn't strongly support a transition to personal accounts is committing malpractice.
___

On a darker note...

OJ, almost nothing about America is "self correcting" any more - your sunny posts notwithstanding.

While good things are happening here and there, the pickets have already been erected to reverse them.

In 10 years, America will be a Euro-style superstate, and the south will have some Christian Republicans Representatives, and the West may have some economic conservatives, but the resurgent Dems will be back to 260+ seats.

HSAs will be gone, Health Care will be nationalized, and Drug research will be controlled by the Federal Stem cell research Axis while all the remaining pharmacuetical companies will be mere pill manufacturers fighing over Patent definitions.

Milwaukee Vouchers will be overturned, and the NEA will gain control of the NCLB apparatus built by W.

Elections will look more European, as the Federal McCain Communications Election Commission will edit poltical speech for the entire year, and not just 60 days before an election. The Chinese-owned "GoogleTube" will make sure Conservative blogs never show up on search engines.

All that's left is the round up.

Smile, your blog is about the only thing that puts me in good mood.

Actually, raising the retirement age isn't even necessary, but it does fit with our Protestant Work Ethic.

OJ:
I like how you just kinda through Biology in there. So I guessing you like your disciplines cooked medium; Biology is too hard, literature too soft?
NAFTA and other like agreements have received support from both parties; which makes sense because both receive most of their funding and orders from the sames sources. The union element of the Dems protested, but the real movers and shakers.
I would really like to see you show how it has improved other Central and South American countries; unless of course you consider poverty, disease, economic stagnation, immigration/emmigration to be progress. Do you remember the language of promise surrounding NAFTA? Where is all the development? The agreement has allowed for massive wealth to concentrate into relatively few hands in Mexico. At first there were more jobs, which were quickly lost to Asia. The surging tide of left-oriented anti-American/imperialist movements all across Latin American, is for me the most positive reaction caused by NAFTA.
All this says nothing about the disruption to the economies of the manufacturing towns in the US; the ghost towns of the 21st century. I'm sure states like Texas and Florida aren't complaining, but I really don't care about Texas or Florida.
I know what you mean about econ departments. Familiar with John Lott? He's a visiting professor at my school right now whose research, like so many other scholars of the infamous AEI, has come under a little bit of fire. I would direct you to his school homepage, but it appears to be missing right now (hmmm....).

Ok, before the insults start:

After "real movers and shakers": insert your own interpretation of the legislative process.
The Dems (along with the PhDs surveyed I would presume) are not saying that raising the age alone would solve SS issues. I think everyone would agree that in order to avert certain looming problems, something needs to be done to steer Americans towards saving money. That message is drowned out immediately by other voices asking us to do otherwise.
For Bush SS has been more of a smoke screen than anything else.

Biology is ideological, not scientific.

Democrats voted in lockstep against the most recent trade measures. Only the suasion of Bill Clinton--the Eisenhower Republican--got any of them to vote for NAFTA and GATT, which the GOP passed.

Freer trade (and the end of the Cold War) is why we're in the midst of an unprecedented period of global economic growth, with even places like sub-Saharan Africa doing well. Mexico, meanwhile, has boosted its per capita GDP up over $10K, which is why its moved from illiberal to liberal democracy.

No, that's quite wrong. Americans have the highest savings rates in the world.

Of course SS hysteria is a smokescreen. The point is just to move the money from the feds to the citizenry.

It was a lot more than Bill Clinton that got NAFTA passed. 100 Dems and 134 Reps in the House. I know it might feel so right to think that there are huge differences between the two parties, in actuality they have gotten away with the most lucrative good cop/bad cop routine in the history of the world.
OK, GDP numbers increased. Maybe we can connect this to argument currently going on another post. If NAFTA improved Latin America so much, why do they keep coming? And please give me a reason other than something like "the superior sectors of their culture are the ones making the move." There is nothing superior about the gay Puerto Rican drug dealer who lives next door to me.
Highest savings rates in the world? Pray tell, what are your sources?