Robert E. Lucas Jr.
Robert Lucas’s Nobel: Won 1995 Prize for: “having developed and applied the hypothesis of rational expectations, and thereby having transformed macroeconomic analysis and deepened our understanding of economic policy”.What Robert Lucas researched: Lucas’s development of rational expectations theory has shown economists how households change their behaviour in response to various monetary and fiscal policies and how this has an impact on the economy as a whole.
What Robert Lucas has said about the election: Lucas has made no mention of why he supports Bush’s policies over Kerry’s other than to point out that he (Lucas) sits on economic advisory panel for President Bush. (Source: Minnesota Star-Tribune)
Robert Mundell
Robert Mundell’s Nobel: Won 1999 Prize for: “his analysis of monetary and fiscal policy under different exchange rate regimes and his analysis of optimum currency areas”What Robert Mundell researched: Mundell’s work has largely been in macroeconomics and financial economics and examines how international currency exchange markets operate and the short-run effects of fiscal and monetary policy in a country which is open to international trade.
What Robert Mundell has said about the election: Mundell appears to prefer Bush’s talk of tax cuts, as he once quoted as saying “taxes are the arterial sclerosis of the economy.” (Source: The Vancouver Sun)
Milton Friedman
Milton Friedman’s Nobel: Won 1976 Prize for: “his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy”.What Milton Friedman researched: What didn’t Milton Friedman research? Friedman is the easily the most famous post-war economist as well as being one of the most controversial figures in the field.
What Milton Friedman has said about the election: Friedman made some very interesting comments in an interview with John Hawkins. Friedman believes that a Democrat controlled senate with a Republican President would be good for America as it was good during the Reagan years stating:
- The virtues of a President of one party and a House and Senate of the other. That's best combination for economic growth... you have a deadlock. You can't get any major spending programs through because one party or the other will oppose it. That's why we have what looks like a paradox. The Clinton administration, in terms of the budget, has one of the best records of holding down spending. Spending went up less under Clinton than almost any other President… If the White House were under Bush, and House and Senate were under the Democrats, I do not believe there would be much spending.
