Ed Leamer is running as a write-in candidate for vice president of the United States
Ed Leamer is running for vice president of the United States.
Leamer, who holds UCLA Anderson’s Chauncey J. Medberry Chair and also serves as director of the UCLA Anderson Forecast, is running as a write-in candidate along with presidential candidate Laurence Kotlikoff, who, like Leamer, is a professor of economics. Kotlikoff, who holds numerous chairs and appointments, is on the faculty at Boston University. Leamer and Kotlikoff first met when the former was teaching at Harvard and the latter was his student.
Leamer holds no illusions about being elected: He realizes that in today’s political climate it is virtually impossible for a write-in candidate with limited resources to actually get the most votes. But even with winning the election off the table, Leamer didn’t get involved as a publicity stunt. Instead, he sees it as a way for him and Kotlikoff to try to bring to the fore what they see as key economic issues.
Leamer sat down with the UCLA Anderson blog to discuss these issues and opened by saying, “Economists are taught to think logically and clearly about all the potential impacts of a policy — not just the surface impact, but that which is unexpected. A famous 19th-century French economist named Frederic Bastiat said, ‘There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.’”
Laurence Kotlikoff is running as a write-in candidate for president of the United States
Politicians, Leamer is implying, often propose policies that, on the surface, look good to voters. But they often do so without considering the indirect impacts. Like the “good economists” that Bastiat references, Kotlikoff and Leamer are focused on what must be foreseen.
Ed Leamer: We represent the youth of America, the future of America, and we want to make sure that the public policies that are put in place are guaranteeing that America’s going to be a great place in a decade or two. We think every bill that goes through Congress should have a youth impact statement. There should be an assessment as to how this affects the youth of America. And if it’s adverse, then we ought to be avoiding that. It ought to get a big red asterisk, saying, “This is not good for the youth of America.”
Q: What types of proposals would avoid that asterisk?
Leamer: From my perspective, there are three things that the nation ought to do.
First of all, we’ve got to have much better employment prospects for college graduates and high school graduates. We need to do something to create the access to good jobs for the youth, and to a large extent that comes from workforce development and better educational outcomes.