That 'expert' Biden cited for claiming his policies would create lots of jobs
In Tuesday's presidential debate, Joe Biden said an analysis of his proposed policies shows they would yield great job growth. I wondered, who in his right mind and with an ounce of common sense would believe that massive higher taxation; huge new regulations; intentional destruction of high-paying energy jobs; moving rapidly toward single-payer, government-run health care; a high national minimum wage; and open borders with lots of free stuff for illegals would yield great results?
I figured the analysis had to be done by a puppet of the Democrat party, not an "independent" entity. Sure enough, the analysis was done by old reliable Moody's Analytics with Mark Zandi.
Frequently, the media and other Democrats go to the supposedly independent Zandi to support Democrat policies and trash Republican policies. Zandi works for Moody's, and a major shareholder of Moody's is Warren Buffett. Zandi and Buffett have been consistent supporters of Obama and Hillary the past ten years and now Biden, so Zandi is as independent as the Justice Department and IRS was under Obama.
Zandi is about as independent and fair in his analysis as the Washington Post, New York Times, Google, Twitter, and Facebook.
Moody's Analytics, an economic-research firm, has published an economic forecast weighing the effects of Joe Biden and Donald Trump's proposals. It finds Biden's plan would produce dramatically faster job growth and higher wages for most workers.
Biden's proposals would lead to 18.6 million new jobs during his first term, and the average American's income (after taxes) would increase by $4,800. Trump's policies would lead to an increase of 11.2 million new jobs by 2025, with minimal real income gain for average households.
In this article from the AP, Zandi predicted 700,000 job losses and a slow economy if Trump put on tariffs. Somehow these experts don't seem to think Canada, Mexico, Europe, and China would adjust their punitive tariffs and taxes to protect their economy. They seemed to lack vision as they exhibited groupthink.
In Tuesday's debate, Biden ripped Trump on manufacturing and said he would create jobs by forcing the government to buy American. Biden has been in D.C. for almost fifty years and has consistently cheered China on while letting manufacturing jobs leave — but now we should trust him?
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 12.9 million manufacturing jobs at the end of 2008, when Obama/Biden took office, and despite coming out of a recession, there were only 12.4 million manufacturing jobs at the end of 2016, when Obama/Biden left office. In case journalists and other Democrats have trouble calculating, that is a loss of 500,000 mostly good-paying manufacturing jobs.
In contrast, at December 2019, after three years of Trump's trade and tax policies and with many fewer regulations, the U.S was back up to 12.9 million manufacturing jobs or a gain of 500,000 jobs.
It doesn't take a genius or an economics degree to know which policies work and which ones don't.
Moody's Analytics estimates that if the tariffs were imposed on autos and most Chinese imports and other countries retaliate as expected, annual U.S. growth would slow by 0.5 percentage point by mid-2019. It expects that 700,000 jobs would be lost.
In 2016, Zandi said Trump's policies would cost 4 million jobs as he was shilling for Hillary. Instead, we will have around 6.5 million new jobs in Trump's first three years. Zandi was so close at only 10.5 million jobs off, and now we are supposed to believe his 2020 predictions?
An economic model of Trump's proposals, prepared by Moody's Analytics at the request of The Washington Post, suggests Trump is half-right about his plans. They would, in fact, sock it to China and Mexico. Both would fall into recession, the model suggests, if Trump levied his proposed tariffs and those countries retaliated with tariffs of their own.
Unfortunately, the United States would fall into recession, too. Up to 4 million American workers would lose their jobs. Another 3 million jobs would not be created that otherwise would have been, had the country not fallen into a trade-induced downturn.
Zandi in October of 2017 said the Republican tax plan wouldn't add significantly to economic growth. He was obviously wrong.
In 2016, during the election campaign, Zandi said Hillary's plan would create millions of extra jobs and fast economic growth. I would ask Zandi why the U.S had the slowest economic recovery in seventy years under Obama/Biden and now would be great. How do higher taxes, more regulations, and transferring more power to the government stimulate economic growth?
Hillary Clinton's plans for the economy would boost growth and create millions of jobs, according to a new analysis.
Moody's Analytics estimates that if the Democratic presidential nominee's proposals are enacted, the economy would create 10.4 million jobs during her presidency, or 3.2 million more than expected under current law.
Moody's Analytics is an independent research group, but the lead author of the report on Clinton is Mark Zandi, who donated $2,700 to her campaign last year, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.
Zandi was a vocal supporter of the stimulus package President Obama deployed during the financial crisis of 2009
Zandi also shilled for Obama over Romney. His stripes don't change.
Mark Zandi of Moody's said Obama's policy was better than Romneys
All fiscal multipliers are adopted or modeled from fiscal multipliers published by Moody's Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi, as detailed in Table A-1 (Zandi 2011a; Zandi 2011b; Bivens and Fieldhouse 2012).
Why is Zandi considered an "expert" when his forecasts have been so wrong? People should also remember that Zandi and Moody's contributed greatly to the economic collapse of 2008. They made huge amounts of money rating junk mortgages as Triple A so they could be sold to the public.
A rock could have spotted the housing bubble with no document loans, no down payment loans, over 100% loan to value loans but not the ratings agencies?
Voters should use their common sense. Does it make sense that if the government confiscates a much greater share of private sector money and power for themselves that the economy would grow faster than with lower taxes and fewer regulations?
Don't trust people who are called experts. They make a lot of stuff up when they are pushing agendas.
The choice gets easier every day if we want more freedom and opportunity for people of all races to move up the economic ladder. Moving towards any form of socialism would lead to cataclysmic disaster, not a couple of degree temperature rise.
Photo credit: YouTube screen grab (cropped).