- Chile's Codelco in 'fragile' situation as it makes loss
- AP Explains: The trial to remove Brazil's president
- Jose mourinho says it will be 'difficult' for bastian schweinsteiger to play
- I'm not wealthy claims Jeremy Corbyn, despite earning £138,000 a-year, owning a £600,000 home and £1.6million pension
- Facelifts, hair transplants and A LOT of Botox: How X Factor judges including Sharon Osbourne and Louis Walsh STILL look as young as they did when they were last on TV together
- Judge gets own back on thug who had boasted on Facebook about avoiding prison
- Brexit boost as latest figures show EU vote has no impact on economic growth
- Cousin of teenage terror twins who joined ISIS is jailed for seven years
- Toronto man charged in crossbow murders that left 3 dead
- Sad downfall of a TV star: Shocking pictures show Jackass' Bam Margera urinating in the street and getting carted off by the police during European holiday with his wife
More from Business
- The multi-billion pound business owned by the Grosvenor family started 338 years ago
- Lloyds is shutting 200 branches and axing 3,000 jobs as it braces for interest rates cut after Brexit?
- Bank of England meets to weigh up Brexit threat to UK economy
- PepsiCo profit beats expectations on North American demand; stock rises
- Oil rises as investors await Brexit vote
NEW YORK -- Economists think Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney would be better for the economy than President Obama. But they're not very enthusiastic about either of them.
Nine of 17 top economists surveyed by CNNMoney picked Romney when asked who's election would help the economy grow more. Only three picked Obama.
But the remaining five made no pick, with several suggesting neither would provide much of a lift to the sagging economy.
"Obama doesn't really understand business and Romney doesn't really understand how to govern. So pick your poison," said Gary Rosenberger of EconoPlay, one of those surveyed who refused to give a pick.
And many of those picking Romney were more critical of, as opposed to excited about, the Republican challenger's plans.
"Romney's policies would likely be less bad for the economy than Obama's," said Bill Watkins, executive director of the Center for Economic Research and Forecasting at Cal Lutheran University.
Several of the economists who thought Romney would be better for the economy pointed out what they thought were flaws in Obama's record. These economists felt there is too much regulatory uncertainty hanging over businesses and that gridlock between the White House and Republicans in Congress also is a drag on hiring and growth.
"Romney might be more likely to get Congress to do something, whereas Obama has shown he can't," said David Wyss, a fellow at Brown University.
Allen Sinai of Decision Economics gave the Republican challenger the most enthusiastic support of those surveyed, saying Romney's calls for "cutting growth of government outlays, lowering tax rates and closing loopholes, less regulatory uncertainty ...smaller government and entitlement reform all must be tackled."
But those who picked Obama are hoping things will be different if the president wins a second term. Obama could be in a better position to enact reforms on entitlement spending and reach a deal on deficit reduction than Romney, according to one economist.
"It's the Nixon-to-China syndrome -- only a Democrat can get away with it," said Bill Cheney, chief economist at Manulife Asset Management.