Passage of Proposition 10, it seems, would prevent landlords of older (pre-Feb.1995) Mountain View apartments from increasing rents on turnover to the sky-high market. It would disincentivize unjust evictions. And Prop. 10's passage would eliminate state law restrictions on further limits on residential rent increases in other rental housing. However, as the article states, any new rent control provisions may need to be approved by Mountain View voters in the form of a charter amendment. No loss there. The City Council would never have adopted real limits anyway. Finally, it is NOT TRUE that only voters by initiative petition may qualify for the ballot a proposed city charter amendment. The City Council may proposed a charter amendment as appeared on the November 2014 city ballot (increasing the salaries of - any guesses? - city councilmembers). Then again, City Councilmembers proved in 2016 that they cannot be trusted to propose a straightforward law limiting rent increases. Remember that the councilmembers proposed Measure W (an ordinance) to divert votes from the real rent control measure (Measure V). It probably worked - but was not sufficient to forestall voter approval of Measure V by about a close 53-47% margin.

Solid work. Thanks for the detail.

The Costa-Hawkins law came about because, when San Francisco passed it's rent control in 1980, the developers stopped building apartments in the city. It was the elected S.F leaders who where too scared to go before the public and say we have to modify the rent control law because we are having a housing shortage and people have no to place to come and live in the city.

These S.F leaders went to Sacramento and had them write this new state law that would exempt all new construction from rent control.

Rent control does not work, S.F has fewer rent controlled properties today than when the law first was enacted.

If Mountain View Mandates seismic retrofit work to these older apts. you will see a flood of properties that will be razed and even fewer apartments in this city. If Prop.10 passes there will be no reason for any developer to build apartments here and many of the newer apt. buildings will be converted to condo's.

There will be people who say this is just fear mongering.
Ask yourself this, why would a private business owner invest money into a business where the owner has no property rights and is overly regulated by people who hate landlords.

You get less housing with rent control.

Repealing Costa Hawkins is a priority for the state of California because the laws are unfair to all renters at this time. All renters should be entitled to equal treatment under the laws.

The city should advocate for repeal because the CSFRA passed when Costa Hawkins “SPLIT” the renter’s votes. Landlords in newer building convinced the majority of their tenants to vote against Measure V because it was not going to benefit them. But if Costa Hawkins repeal succeeds, that will make a significant change.

The voters will be given the opportunity to expand CSFRA when Costa Hawkins does not ban the new rent control. And that ALL renters will benefiting upon passage. This is likely to almost guaranty that the rest of Mountain View Renters will be treated the same under the law.

Some other items you did not mention.

If Prop. 10 passes, the newer-mega apartment units that have been built by corporations will be converting to a condo map, if they already did not do that, and sold off as condo's. Meaning, those tenants in those buildings will be evicted under the Ellis act.

If Prop. 10 passes, there will only be fewer and fewer rentals in the city of Mtn.View as time goes by. No one will ever put up their property for rent.

No private person will ever build any rental units in Mountain View.

There will only be an acceleration of the older apartment building owners who want to get of the rental business in our city and they will be selling off to developers.

"People are being priced out of their homes"

Hello-o-o..... Its NOT their homes.

It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that CSFRA was written without an eye towards the repeal of Costa Hawkins. CSFRA was specifically written to not scare the homeowner voters whose support was needed for passage. Excluding single family homes made CSFRA a no cost, feel-good measure for those who would never lose anything by its passage. And the part of CSFRA about "to the maximum extent permitted by state law" was one way to extend the reach of CSFRA when Cost Hawkins was passed.

First of all Scandinavia is not a country , so comparing it to a country like Venezuela is improper. Better to compare Scandinavia to Latin American .

Second, none of the Scandinavian countries are socialist. They have huge social welfare programs but that doesn't make them socialist. In fact if you look at economic and political freedom indices, Scandinavian countries are rated higher than the US. Venezuela is rated at the bottom , just above N. Korea.

Read the definition of socialism. No private property, ( see Cuba, North Korea), Venezuela was not always socialist. It has started to end private property. Russia and China have moved from socialism to a mixed economy where they do allow private ownership. They obviously made the move since pure socialism was failing. They couldn't feed their population. China still has the communist party rule politically.

Socialism does lead to a large welfare state, like Scandinavian countries , but these countries still maintain economic and political freedoms to allow capitalism to work.

TBM,
"Why should current tenants be forced to pay for such bad judgment? ESPECIALLY WHEN NO IMPROVEMENT WAS EVER MADE ON THE PROPERTY AFTER PURCHASE. The property or the units did not change at all. WHAT BASIS IS THERE FOR SUCH A RAISE IN RENT? That is classic “BAIT AND SWITCH”

This is really simple TBM, you enjoyed below market rent for many years with expectation that is going to continue indefinitely.
Maybe the new owner has different financial obligations than the former owner and cannot afford to subsidize your inefficient lifestyle.
This does not have anything to do with improvements or lack thereof. You cannot expect to live on someone else's dime for the rest of your life.

Why the owner has to be responsible for the wrong CHOICES that you made in your life?

Instead of assuring your own housing and purchasing real property, you made the CHOICE of relying on someone else's effort of providing you with living space for certain predetermined time and for certain price.

That is all.

If you are a California homeowner, Proposition 10 in the November ballot will remove your right to be exempt from rent control and, if it passes, California will seek ways to compensate for tax revenue lost due to lower taxes collected from rent controlled cities. In other words your state taxes may go up to subsidize the rents of tenants in Berkeley, Santa Monica, West Hollywood and any other city that chooses to adopt radical rent control.
It may get worse: the editorial fails to mention how difficult it is to evict a bad tenant in rent controlled cities, even if you want to move back into your own house. It will take tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and many months before you regain possession.
Also, to regulate rent control that imposes vacancy controls (no increase allowed between tenants), a large bureaucracy is needed that will need salaries, pensions and municipal employee benefits.
For example some cities have in place as high as three hundred dollars per unit per year and a nearly three percent tax on the gross receipts (total rent collected per year).

In response to Robert Cabrera you said:

“If you are a California homeowner, Proposition 10 in the November ballot will remove your right to be exempt from rent control and, if it passes, California will seek ways to compensate for tax revenue lost due to lower taxes collected from rent controlled cities. In other words your state taxes may go up to subsidize the rents of tenants in Berkeley, Santa Monica, West Hollywood and any other city that chooses to adopt radical rent control.”

The only documentation that makes this claim provides no evidence to support it. Please provide some evidence that taxes will rise simply because of Costa Hawkins repeal. The loss of taxes is going to occur independent of Costa Hawkins bewcasue the market is going through a correction publisahed by Marketwatch found here (Web Link

“Rates for home loans declined for the third straight week, in line with the broader bond market, but not in time to help much of the housing market.

The 30-year fixed-rate mortgage averaged 4.51% in the Aug. 23 week, down two basis points, according to Freddie Mac’s weekly survey. That was the lowest point for the popular product since mid-April. The 15-year fixed-rate mortgage, meanwhile, averaged 3.98%, down from 4.01%. The 5-year Treasury-indexed hybrid adjustable-rate mortgage averaged 3.82%, down five basis points.

Those rates don’t include fees associated with obtaining mortgage loans.

Mortgage rates follow the path of the U.S. 10-year Treasury note TMUBMUSD10Y, -0.45% . Government bonds have benefitted from investor fears about geopolitics and emerging markets, as well as uncertainty about signals from the Federal Reserve ahead of its Jackson Hole conference. Bond yields decline as prices rise.

In the housing market, meanwhile, conditions are looking increasingly grim. Sales of previously-owned homes fell to the lowest pace in two and a half years in July, the National Association of Realtors said Wednesday.

The Realtor group last month cut its full-year 2018 forecast, and now sees sales 1% lower than last year. More recently, the Mortgage Bankers Association slashed its 2018 forecast for new purchase mortgages. The group sees purchases 3.5% higher compared to a year ago - but prices are running about 6% higher.

Mortgage rates are up a bit compared to last year, but it’s more likely that a combination of higher prices and rates are biting into affordability. For a $400,000 home with a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage and a 20% down payment, the monthly principal and interest payment at the 2018 average would only cost $84 more per month than the 2017 average, according to Zillow’s Mortgage Calculator.”

Simply put, you cannot establish a cause and effect. You said:

“It may get worse: the editorial fails to mention how difficult it is to evict a bad tenant in rent controlled cities, even if you want to move back into your own house. It will take tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and many months before you regain possession.”

Your claim depends on a LOT of assumptions and variables. There are some cases where you might be right, but they are a SIGNIFICANT minority. Your making this argument simply for the sake of attempting to use fear to override the publics rational thinking. You said:

“Also, to regulate rent control that imposes vacancy controls (no increase allowed between tenants), a large bureaucracy is needed that will need salaries, pensions and municipal employee benefits.”

If the property is not changed other than the unit is cleaned or repainted, then the unit value is not expected to increase simply because a new tenant moves in. This false logic has been the basis of inflated values that are about to be corrected. Why should the public accept this idea on its face value? I simply state the voter should consider this in making their decisions. You said:

“For example some cities have in place as high as three hundred dollars per unit per year and a nearly three percent tax on the gross receipts (total rent collected per year).”

Please provide the cities involved? We cannot take your word for it alone

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

In response to mike rose you said:

“The above statement questioning census accuracy is your OPINION only,

with zero proof to back it up.”

What PROOF do you have to substantiate that statement? I can provide documented proof of my work on this data acquisition and analysis. So far you do nothing but repeat the same claim, “ANYONE THAT DOESN’T AGREE WITH ME IS A LIAR” You said:

“You can't provide any legitimate studies, research or documentation to support your FALSE claim that 60% of California residents are tenants.”

In any SCIENTIFIC study, in order to pass “PEER REVIEW”, in order for you to establish validity, it must be proven to be valid. Thus complete transparency regarding the QUESTIONS, METHODS, AND COMPUTATIONS, and that it is duplicated precisely and the exact same results are uncovered. Your reliance on one study performed by those with a political interest to come up with an ideological result is dangerous. THUS IT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC. IT IS PROPAGANDA. Simply put, you take an anthill and make it a mountain. You said:

“Fortunately, voters see clearly through the lies and cheat like this, fed to the public by radical tenants activists, and seem to soundly reject the Costa Hawkins repeal and it's dire consequences.”

Again you WANT to dictate to the VOTERS your financial interest by threats and invalid predictions because economists are social scientists. They CANNOT prove cause and effect and can only analyze past events. I just point that out to the public and you cannot state otherwise. On proof of this is found here on Investopedia (Web Link It states:

What are some of the limitations and drawbacks of economics as a field?

A: Economics is a social science that examines how people produce, distribute, and consume goods and services. This means that much of the field is based on human behavior, which can be somewhat irrational and unpredictable. FOR THIS REASON, IT'S A SCIENCE WITH CERTAIN INHERENT LIMITATIONS THAT PREVENT ITS PRACTITIONER – ECONOMISTS, THAT IS – FROM BEING ABLE TO ACCURATELY PREDICT MARKETS' PERFORMANCE AND KNOW EXACTLY HOW CERTAIN POLICIES WILL AFFECT DIFFERENT SECTORS AND ECONOMIES.

IN ADDITION, THE FIELD OF ECONOMICS SUFFERS FROM THE PROBLEM OF NON-REPLICABILITY. It is impossible to precisely recreate market conditions or predict an outcome based on how markets have behaved in the past under similar circumstances. UNLIKE THE HARD SCIENCES, WHERE RESEARCHERS ARE ABLE TO ISOLATE CERTAIN VARIABLES AND FIGURE OUT DIRECT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CAUSE AND EFFECT, THERE IS NO WAY TO COMPLETELY ISOLATE ANY VARIABLE IN THE WORLD OF ECONOMICS. The markets are simply too large, too intertwined and too influenced by human behavior to act in any way that is 100% predictable. In fact, there are so many variables involved that it is even impossible to identify all the factors in play in the first place.

The limitations of economics become especially problematic in normative economics, which involves recommendations about how things ought to be and what types of policies a government should implement in order to improve a nation's economy. Different economists come to completely different conclusions about what kind of regulations and controls should be applied to various markets and exactly what outcomes will result. WHILE THEY CAN POINT TO DATA, HISTORIC PRECEDENCE AND OTHER FACTS TO SUPPORT THEIR ARGUMENTS, THERE IS NO WAY TO GUARANTEE THAT THEY ARE RIGHT.

Because the field of economics cannot provide concrete conclusions, it is susceptible to criticism from a variety of sources, as is the case with political economics. POLITICIANS OFTEN USE NORMATIVE ECONOMICS TO ARGUE FOR CERTAIN POLICY CHANGES THAT SUPPORT THEIR OWN AGENDAS. They present their beliefs and hypotheses to the public as irrefutable facts when, in actuality, there is no way to verify the validity of their ideas, except to put them into practice and evaluate the results.

Economics was born out of the idea that human beings could study the nature of wealth in order to better the world, but it is a problematic area of inquiry. While positive economics can help people understand what is currently happening, it is much more difficult to use similar modes of thinking to predict the future and influence policies to ensure overall improvements. EVEN LONGSTANDING THEORIES THAT ARE CONSIDERED ESSENTIAL ASPECTS OF ECONOMICS SOMETIMES CONTRADICT ONE ANOTHER. Ultimately, economists have to choose to subscribe to a particular school of thought that best aligns with their beliefs. These opposing viewpoints can cause controversies and only add to the limitations of economics in actually solving financial problems.”

Read more: What are some of the limitations and drawbacks of economics as a field? | Investopedia Web Link “

So again, nothing but a personal attack because you cannot base your argument on sufficient evidence. Your statements are nothing but hyperbole and you know it.

If you can vote and want any type of rental housing built now or in the future, vote NO on Prop 10.

If you can vote and want privately funded rental housing built with some homes set aside as "affordable" vote NO on Prop 10.

If you want 100% tax payer funded, shovel ready, public housing built, doesn't matter how you vote, government controlled housing will never be built again, and if were, you're not getting into one unless you are a city employee.

Rent Control never built a new affordable rental unit. Vote NO on Prop 10

Voting YES on Prop 10 will, however, build many new "for sale" Row-houses, Town-homes and Condominiums. New homes, to be built in MV, is a dream come true for many.

"If it don't make dollars, it don't make sense". You cannot not legislate desired behavior of a private residential investor who chooses to take their marbles and go home.

Unfortunately, taxpayers are left holding the bag ($ millions) for councils and committees that will never build anything but animosity within their community.

Even Berkeley city council understands the need to exempt new housing from rent control if Prop 10 passes. MVCC should take note.

Is it possible to know how current and those running for MVCC stand on Prop 10? Or is is just more hand wringing and posturing. Pretty simple

In response to omvmyr you said:

“If you can vote and want any type of rental housing built now or in the future, vote NO on Prop 10.”

FALSE premise question, there are plenty of records indicating that rent control DOES NOT STOP RENTAL HOUSING BUILDING. You know that. You said

“If you can vote and want privately funded rental housing built with some homes set aside as "affordable" vote NO on Prop 10.”

The proportion of “AFFORDABLE” housing currently allocated is less than 20% in your proposal. Simply it will never relieve the housing crisis and you know it. The only way will be to “FORCE” as much as 50% of any development to be BMR housing. Of course that will never take place where the CAA and the CAR dictates the legislature. THE VOTERS MUST TAKE ACTION NOW. You said:

“If you want 100% tax payer funded, shovel ready, public housing built, doesn't matter how you vote, government controlled housing will never be built again, and if were, you're not getting into one unless you are a city employee.”

YOU ARE CORRECT BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE CAA AND THE CAR. THEY DICTATE THAT NO PUBLIC HOUSING EVER BE BUILT. YOU PREMISE THAT ONLY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WILL BE ABLE TO GET IT IS FALSE BECAUSE IT SIMPLY DOESN’T EXIST. IF AMPLE PUBLIC HOUSING WAS BUILT THERE WOULD BE PLENTY OF UNITS FOR ALL. You said:

“Rent Control never built a new affordable rental unit. Vote NO on Prop 10”

AND YET COSTA HAWKINS HAS PROVEN TO NOT DO THIS AS WELL. 20 YEARS OF CHRONIC INTENTIONAL SHORTAGE OF SIMPLE HOUSING IS PROOF. HOWEVER THERE IS NO PROOF THAT YOUR CLAIM IS VALID GIVEN THAT RESEARCH INDICATES THAT RENT CONTROLLED CITIES OUTPACE NON-RENT CONTROLLED CITIES REGARDING BUILDING. You said:

“Voting YES on Prop 10 will, however, build many new "for sale" Row-houses, Town-homes and Condominiums. New homes, to be built in MV, is a dream come true for many.”

THAT WILL HAPPEN BECAUSE THE CITY COUNCIL IS DETERMINED TO UNDERMINE THE CITY CHARTER AND IS DEPENDENT ON THE CAA AND THE CAR REGARDING THEIR POLITICAL ACTIVITIES. You said:

“"If it don't make dollars, it don't make sense". You cannot not legislate desired behavior of a private residential investor who chooses to take their marbles and go home. “

THE CURRENT ONES YES, BUT IF THERE IS A COORDINATED EFFORT BY MORE THAN 2 PERSONS TO RESTRICT ANY DEVELOPMENT IT WOU:D BE A VIOATEION OF THE “CARTWRIGHT” ACT REGARDING MARKET ANTI_COMPETTITVE BUSINESS PRACTICES. You said:

“Unfortunately, taxpayers are left holding the bag ($ millions) for councils and committees that will never build anything but animosity within their community.”

THE REAL ESTATE VALUES ARE POISED TO TAKE AT LEAST A 10% CUT INVALUSE IN THE NEXT YEAR DUE TO RISING FED INTEREST RATES. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RENT CONTROL. THAT IS THE REAL CAUSE OF THE “taxpayers are left holding the bag ($ millions) for councils and committees”. NOT RENT CONTROL. THIS IS JUST A SMOKESCREEN DESIGNED TO FRIGHTEN THE PUBLIC. You said:

“Even Berkeley city council understands the need to exempt new housing from rent control if Prop 10 passes. MVCC should take note. “

HOWEVER BERKELEY IS NOT MAKING ANY DECISION THAT WOULD PROHIBIT RENT CONTROLS. IT DOES DELAY THEM FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS FOR A NEW BUILDING. SO IT IS JUST A DELAY NOT A STOP. You said:

“Is it possible to know how current and those running for MVCC stand on Prop 10? Or is is just more hand wringing and posturing. Pretty simple”

I WANT THIS TOO. WE SHOULD KNOW WHAT THEIR POSITION IS ON PROP 10.

In response to mike rose you said:

“Do you understand the difference between Prop 10 and rent control?”

REGARDING MY COMMENTS IT REALLY DOESN’T MATTER ON EITHER you said:

“It seems that you don't, because I was referring to prop 10 failing in polls but to rent control in general in my comments on possible future initiatives.”

AGAIN, ANY PRIVATE GROUP THAT DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE SCRIPT, THE RAW DATA, THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE SAMPLE, OR ANY OTHER FACTOR THAT INFLUENCES THE RESULTS ARE SIMPLY OPEN TO QUESTION. PERIOD. You said:

“Most of the Californians understand that difference, as slight majority polled (52%) in the latest poll support the rent control in general, but only slightly over 30% suppprt prop 10.”

NOT IF THE SCRIPT, THE RAW DATA, THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE SAMPLE, OR ANY OTHER FACTOR THAT INFLUENCES THE RESULTS ARE SIMPLY OPEN TO QUESTION. PERIOD. You said:

“READ the poll results in its entirety!!!!!

It is available online.”

THE RESULTS ARE NOT IMPORTANT IF THE PROCESS USED WAS DESIGNED TO INFLUENCE THE RESULTS. YOU KNOW THIS. SO IT CAN BE ALMOST NOTHING BUT A PAID FOR ADVERTISEMENT AND NOT SCIENTIFIC WITHOUT THE SCRIPT, THE RAW DATA, THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE SAMPLE, OR ANY OTHER FACTOR THAT INFLUENCES THE RESULTS ARE SIMPLY OPEN TO QUESTION.

WHY DO YOU IGNORE THE OBVIOUS?

In response to mike rose you said:

“I don't ignore the obvious.”

I DO NOT you said:

“All of the above, script, raw data, demographics of the sample, and many other factors are there, in the full PPIC report.”

OK lets look:

THE QUESTION ASKED:

19. [likely voters only] Proposition 10 is called the “Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. Initiative Statute” It repeals state law that currently restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities and other local jurisdictions may impose on residential property. The fiscal impact is potential net reduction in state and local revenues of tens of millions of dollars per year in the long term. Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or considerably more. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 10?“

It is on page 25. OK lets look how it is loaded and designed to create a false result.

First, the question is based on “residential” properties. Specifically it stated “It repeals state law that currently restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities and other local jurisdictions may impose on residential property. “ ANY unit for rent is NOT a residential property because a “residential” property is one where one lives in who owns it. The only way this qualifies is that the “residential” property owner must “live” in that unit, NOT RENT IT OUT TO ANOTHER. If it is rented out, is is NOT a residential property, but a “commercial” property. YOU KNOW THIS.

Second, the question is loaded with a threat that the anti proposition 10 campaign uses to argue against it namely “The fiscal impact is potential net reduction in state and local re4venues of tens of millions of dollars per year in the long term.” The reality is that the property values will drop regarding the raising Fed rates to 3% by 2021 which will cause a serious reduction in property values, thus resulting in the loss of tax revenues. This information is simply designed to intimidate and manipulate the results of the study. This means that proposition 10 cannot be held responsible alone for this assumption, but it is used to manipulate the results of the study. YOU KNOW THIS.

Third, the question poses the following premise “Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or considerably more.” Again given the reality that real estate values are poised to drop without even with proposition 10, this information is used simply to intimidate and mislead the one be asked the question. YOU KNOW THIS.

You went on to say:

“You did not even bother to read the whole thing in your rush to dismiss it, because the results weren't to your liking.”

As I said before, the nature of the question can dictate the results. I just demonstrated this with the actual question. I knew the question was there, I was waiting for you to produce it to prove your point of view. It would appear that you did not even bother to demonstrate this yourself.

Why? You wanted to avoid repeating the question didn’t you?

Why? Because you KNEW the question was designed to manipulate the person questioned to answer in the negative.

Such deceptive practices do not assist your point of view.

Until you are as transparent as I am by producing the information asked, like I did over and over, how is the public supposed to treat your opinion?

These are the actual poll results.
My apologies, I initially posted the Prop 10 support at 36% while in reality it was lower 35%.
Web Link

To all who are voting either for Newsom or Cox, keep in mind, BOTH CANDIDATES strongly oppose prop 10!!!!!!!

[Post removed due and poster banned due to multiple violations of terms of use]

AND:

In response to mike rose you said:

“The only time You have an issue with him is when his specific research is not in line with your radical ideology.”

WRONG I WILL REPEAT THE REALITY YOU APPEAR TO REFUSE:

AGAIN ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS LOOK UP THE AMERICAN ECONOMIST ASSOCIATION CONFLICT OF INTEREST REFORM FOUND HERE (Web Link NAMELY:

“Disclosure Policy

Disclosure Principles

Submissions to the AEA journals should conform to the AEA disclosure principles which state:

“1. Every submitted article should state the sources of financial support for the particular research it describes. If none, that fact should be stated.”

THIS WAS NOT DISCLOSED REGARDING THE RESEARCH REFERENCED IN THIS ARTICLE.

“2. Each author of a submitted article should identify each interested party from whom he or she has received significant financial support, summing to at least $10,000 in the past three years, in the form of consultant fees, retainers, grants and the like. The disclosure requirement also includes in-kind support, such as providing access to data. If the support in question comes with a non-disclosure obligation, that fact should be stated, along with as much information as the obligation permits. If there are no such sources of funds, that fact should be stated explicitly. An “interested” party is any individual, group, or organization that has a financial, ideological, or political stake related to the article.

AGAIN THIS WAS NOT DISCLOSED REGARDING THE RESEARCH REFERENCED IN THIS ARTICLE.

“3. Each author should disclose any paid or unpaid positions as officer, director, or board member of relevant non-profit organizations or profit-making entities. A “relevant” organization is one whose policy positions, goals, or financial interests relate to the article.”

AGAIN THIS WAS NOT DISCLOSED REGARDING THE RESEARCH REFERENCED IN THIS ARTICLE.

“4. The disclosures required above apply to any close relative or partner of any author.”

AGAIN THIS WAS NOT DISCLOSED REGARDING THE RESEARCH REFERENCED IN THIS ARTICLE.

“5. Each author must disclose if another party had the right to review the paper prior to its circulation.”

AGAIN THIS WAS NOT DISCLOSED REGARDING THE RESEARCH REFERENCED IN THIS ARTICLE.

“The AEA urges its members and other economists to apply the above principles in other publications: scholarly journals, op-ed pieces, newspaper and magazine columns, radio and television commentaries, as well as in testimony before federal and state legislative committees and other agencies.

Instructions

When submitting a paper, the authors should prepare a separate page entitled “Disclosure Statement” that will be uploaded using the online submission form. If the paper involves several co-authors, each coauthor should submit a separate disclosure statement.

The disclosure statement should be included even if the authors have nothing to disclose; this fact should be explicitly stated. The disclosure statement will be available to referees.

Failure to disclose relevant information at the submission stage may result in reversal of acceptance decisions. If the paper is already published, the journal reserves the right to post a note on the journal’s website and in its printed version notifying readers that the authors of the paper violated the AEA disclosure policy. Violations of the disclosure policy will be brought to the attention of the Executive Committee of the American Economic Association who will decide on the appropriate course of action in each case.

Publication of Disclosure

For published articles information on relevant potential conflicts of interest will be made available to the public.

For papers accepted for publication, disclosure will take two forms:

If the disclosure statement is brief, it will be included in the “acknowledgments” footnote.

If the disclosure statement is longer, then disclosure will have two parts: (i) a brief statement summarizing potential conflicts of interest that will be included in the “acknowledgments” footnote; (ii) a more detailed description of the activities and relationships that are the source of a potential conflict of interest. This more detailed account will be available to the public, but only electronically, on the journal’s website. The “acknowledgments” footnote will include a pointer/link to the detailed electronic version of the disclosure statement which will be archived on the journal’s website.

Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval

For any paper involving the collection of data on human subjects the author(s) must disclose whether they have obtained Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval; if no IRB approval was obtained, the reason should be stated.

For example, if the authors have not obtained IRB approval because their institutions do not have IRBs, that fact should be stated. The IRB disclosure statement will be included in the “acknowledgments” footnote.”

FURTHER CONSIDERATION:

SIMPLY PUT THE PAST REPORT YOU REFERENCED WITHOUT DISCLOSURE IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DISCLOSURE REQUREMENTS. IT SIMPLY CAN BE DISREGARDED BECAUSE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CAN BE ASSUMED WITHOUT DISCLOSURE.

THE SIMPLE TRUTH IS THAT ALL THOSE STUDIES WERE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH DISCLOSURE AND THAT REQUIREMENT WAS MANDATED AFTER THE DOCUMENTARY “INSIDE JOB”. THE FILM PROVED THAT CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THE SCIENCE OF ECONMICS WAS SO BAD THAT THE AEA HAD NO CHOICE TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE.


MY PROOF OF THIS CLAIM CAN BE FOUND HERE(Web Link

“The Inside Job effect – Economists to disclose conflicts of interest..

AEA members received this message recently:

Submissions to the AEA journals should conform to the AEA disclosure policy which states:

(1) Every submitted article should state the sources of financial support for the particular research it describes. If none, that fact should be stated.

(2) Each author of a submitted article should identify each interested party from whom he or she has received significant financial support, summing to at least $10,000 in the past three years, in the form of consultant fees, retainers, grants and the like. The disclosure requirement also includes in-kind support, such as providing access to data.

(3) Each author should disclose any paid or unpaid positions as officer, director, or board member of relevant non-profit organizations or profit-making entities.

(4) The disclosures required above apply to any close relative or partner of any author.

(5) Each author must disclose if another party had the right to review the paper prior to its circulation.

(6) For published articles, information on relevant potential conflicts of interest will be made available to the public.

Bruegel Blog summaries some reactions from people. Someone calls this Inside Job effect:

The Inside Job effect

JERRY PETR WRITES THAT THE FINANCIAL CRISIS AND “GREAT RECESSION” OF 2008–09 PROVIDED IMPETUS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW GUIDELINES. JOURNALISTS AND DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKERS, ALONG WITH POLITICAL LEADERS AND SOME ECONOMISTS THEMSELVES, QUESTIONED THE ADVISORY ROLES PLAYED BY WELL-CONNECTED AND HIGH PROFILE ECONOMISTS WHO WERE ALSO CLOSELY TIED TO AND FINANCIALLY REWARDED BY PRIVATE CORPORATIONS OR INSTITUTIONS WHO COULD BE IMPACTED BY THEIR ANALYSES OR POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS. SOME OF THE APPARENT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WERE STRIKING. A NUMBER OF THE DISTINGUISHED GURUS OFFERING GUIDANCE TO POLICYMAKERS TURNED OUT TO BE SITTING ON BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF, OR RECEIVING SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENTS FROM, ENTITIES AFFECTED BY THOSE HIGH-LEVEL POLICY DECISIONS.”

ANY STUDY WITHOUT SAID DISCLOSURE IS SIMPLY INVALIDATED. MIKE YOU KNOW THIS. SIMPLY PUT THAT INFORMATION WAS INVALIDATED DUE TO THE NEW CONLFICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT.

Then you claim that that research was flawed( for whatever bogus reasons you could come up with)

Is this the case here ?

THE AMERICAN ECONOMIST ASSOCIATEION ADOPTED THAT THE PAST RESEARCH WAS BIASED AND INFLUENCED BY CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

[Post removed due to poster being banned for multiple violations of terms of use]