- China's banking regulator moves to contain off-balance sheet risk
- Singapore detains 8 Bangladeshis for alleged IS-related terror plot
- India to tour Zimbabwe next month for limited-overs matches
- Olympics-Pyeongchang chief resigns to focus on business
- Rouhani rallies for more freedom of speech in Iran
- It's undie discussion! Gary Lineker is set to present Match of the Day in his underpants following talks with BBC bosses after vowing to do so if Leicester won the league
- Spitting feathers! Lioness sends huge flock of doves into a flap before snatching one of the birds from the sky and devouring it
- Ducklings going up and down a water slide have the time of their life in funny video
- Long night, Jamie? Leicester City star Vardy emerges looking tired following boisterous house party to celebrate club's fairytale Premier League win (at least his fiancee was up early to take the children to school)
- 'Prince's half-sister' Darcell Gresham Johnston sues for 'her share' of the musician's estate
More from Business
- Google staffers have had meetings at the White House a staggering 427 times over course of Obama presidency - averaging over once a week
- FOREX-Yen sinks on potential for Bank of Japan stimulus expansion
- U.S. auto dealer AutoNation's quarterly profit falls 14 pct
- US STOCKS-Futures flat as investors await earnings reports
- U.S. jobless claims hit 42-1/2 year low as labor market firms
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.