Study confirms: Liberals don't understand economics

[DarrinS]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282190930932412.html?m od=rss_opinion_main





Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.

Zogby researcher Zeljka Buturovic and I considered the 4,835 respondents' (all American adults) answers to eight survey questions about basic economics. We also asked the respondents about their political leanings: progressive/very liberal; liberal; moderate; conservative; very conservative; and libertarian.

Rather than focusing on whether respondents answered a question correctly, we instead looked at whether they answered incorrectly. A response was counted as incorrect only if it was flatly unenlightened.

Consider one of the economic propositions in the December 2008 poll: "Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable." People were asked if they: 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure.

Basic economics acknowledges that whatever redeeming features a restriction may have, it increases the cost of production and exchange, making goods and services less affordable. There may be exceptions to the general case, but they would be atypical.

Therefore, we counted as incorrect responses of "somewhat disagree" and "strongly disagree." This treatment gives leeway for those who think the question is ambiguous or half right and half wrong. They would likely answer "not sure," which we do not count as incorrect.

In this case, percentage of conservatives answering incorrectly was 22.3%, very conservatives 17.6% and libertarians 15.7%. But the percentage of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly was 67.6% and liberals 60.1%. The pattern was not an anomaly.

The other questions were: 1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree). 2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree). 3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree). 4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree). 5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree). 6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree). 7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree).

How did the six ideological groups do overall? Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.

Americans in the first three categories do reasonably well. But the left has trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics.

To be sure, none of the eight questions specifically challenge the political sensibilities of conservatives and libertarians. Still, not all of the eight questions are tied directly to left-wing concerns about inequality and redistribution. In particular, the questions about mandatory licensing, the standard of living, the definition of monopoly, and free trade do not specifically challenge leftist sensibilities.

Yet on every question the left did much worse. On the monopoly question, the portion of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly (31%) was more than twice that of conservatives (13%) and more than four times that of libertarians (7%). On the question about living standards, the portion of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly (61%) was more than four times that of conservatives (13%) and almost three times that of libertarians (21%).

The survey also asked about party affiliation. Those responding Democratic averaged 4.59 incorrect answers. Republicans averaged 1.61 incorrect, and Libertarians 1.26 incorrect.

Adam Smith described political economy as "a branch of the science of a statesman or legislator." Governmental power joined with wrongheadedness is something terrible, but all too common. Realizing that many of our leaders and their constituents are economically unenlightened sheds light on the troubles that surround us.

[clambake]

"Americans in the first three categories do reasonably well. But the left has trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics."

lol

[clambake]

oh, and why didn't you comment about your post, mister fister?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Basic economics acknowledges that whatever redeeming features a restriction may have, it increases the cost of production and exchange, making goods and services less affordable. There may be exceptions to the general case, but they would be atypical.

so the govt mandating homes meet a certain level of safety makes the home more expensive...... equaling less affordable. So I guess conservatives don't need housing code standards because it makes the house more expensive? Therefore housing code regs are unecessary because they make homes unaffordable....

[MannyIsGod]

Well, I'll take my economic know how up against any board member outside of Scott. Fuck that guy.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh and I love the premise of the study. They don't count whether people actually know anything but just rather how incorrect they are. That to me should make the article's title that no one in our country knows economics. I would like to see the conservative answers and if they actually managed to get things right.

[Blake]

out of these three, which one is least likely to understand economics:

Obama
W Bush
Clinton


I think we can all agree that Cheney clearly understands economics.

[RandomGuy]

Well, I'll take my economic know how up against any board member outside of Scott. Fuck that guy.

Now is it Scott, or scott?

[MannyIsGod]

Well, even if the average conservative American understands economics better then the average liberal American I'll take my advice and understanding from Krugman and Roubini among others.

[jack sommerset]

Clearly it's Obama. Look at the deficit, stimulus, healthcare....That guy spends and spends as if money is growing on trees. Someone needs to give him this clock. His goal. Stop the clock. Don't worry about turning it back for now, just stop it.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html

[RandomGuy]

http://econjwatch.org/articles/economic-enlightenment-in-relation-to-college-going-ideology-and-other-variables-a-zogby-survey-of-americans


We also report simple findings for the relation between economic enlightenment and each of the following variables: 2008 presidential vote, party affiliation, voting participation, race or ethnic group, urban vs. rural, religious affiliation, religious participation, union membership, marital status, membership in armed forces, NASCAR fandom, membership in the “investor class,” patronage at Wal-Mart, household income, and gender. Linked appendices provide all data and the survey instrument.

:lmao

One interesting finding here was that economic literacy wasn't correlated to "going to college".


We discuss possible explanations for the finding that economic enlightenment is not correlated with going to college.

Seriously though, the poll generally gibes with my experience. The farther to the left someone is, the less likely they are to have a functioning knowledge of economics.

Oddly though, a surprising number of conservatives who post in boards tend to not do too well when it comes to that stuff either. The advocates of free markets, while generally on board with most economic topics tend to miss out on some important things like negative externalities, and how monopolies and oligopolies can distort free markets to produce less-than-desirable outcomes.

[RandomGuy]

Well, even if the average conservative American understands economics better then the average liberal American I'll take my advice and understanding from Krugman and Roubini among others.

Robert Reich man. If I had to pick a technocrat to really run things, that would be the guy.

Teaches at Berkely. Yeah, I went there biyatches.

[DarrinS]

Paul Krugman and Robert Reichhhhhhhhh?

Good Lord

[DarrinS]

Robert Reich man. If I had to pick a technocrat to really run things, that would be the guy.

Teaches at Berkely. Yeah, I went there biyatches.


My condolences

[MannyIsGod]

What problems do you have with Krugman, Darrin?

[RandomGuy]

Paul Krugman and Robert Reichhhhhhhhh?

Good Lord

Reich is a fairly sensible policy wonk, and yes, he more than understands basic economics.

The fact that he teaches at Berkely is an added grain of sand in the eye of conservatives though. HA!

[Blake]

Clearly it's Obama.

:lol

[scott]

This doesn't surprise me at all. In the case of the student's I've had, I think the more extreme liberal ones have the hardest time reconciling economics with their social ideals.

"Americans in the first three categories do reasonably well. But the left has trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics."

That is an amazingly on-point statement. My favorite example I use in my classes is I have everyone raise their hand who thinks it would be great to have a world with zero pollution. Most students, even the most conservative, raise their hands (I mean, who wouldn't?) - the only ones who don't are the ones who seem to think it's a trick into converting them to being an environmentalist (I presume... who knows what these kids are thinking?).

We can have a world with zero pollution - but there is an opportunity cost. That OC entails pretty much everything we've come to know in modern life. In 6 years of teaching at the university level, only one student has kept their hand up when willing to give up everything to live a primative, pollution-free existence (he thought the idea of living in naked in mud huts was awesome... he was probably high at the time).

I do notice conservative students suffer from the same problem of reconciling economics with political ideals, especially when dealing with welfare economics (this isn't the economics of a welfare system but the economics of maximizing the total well being of society as a whole), but not nearly to the same degree.

Modern liberals (generalizing big time here) put social issues over economics, which is admirable but not practical or smart.

Modern conservatives put economics over social liberty, which is practical but a bit cruel and almost sociopathic.

I'm very much a social liberal but an economic conservative. This is what Libertarianism was supposed to be, but I think has lost it's way.

[RandomGuy]

In 6 years of teaching at the university level, only one student has kept their hand up when willing to give up everything to live a primative, pollution-free existence (he thought the idea of living in naked in mud huts was awesome... he was probably high at the time).

I have occasionally considered this. A nice fishing village in Madgascar with a fairly laid-back lifestyle. All I would really want would be some access to advanced medicine, and a good supply of books.

You might be interested in some of the studies of stone age hunter gathers on the pacific rim.

They spend remarkably little of their time making sure they didn't starve to death. Without rent/taxes, they only really needed to make sure they had enough food to feed themselves, and given a decent location, they ate surprisingly diverse diets, especially those in jungles near the ocean.

Loved that geography class.

I think that we can probably do a LOT along the path towards living more efficiently, and will probably be forced to do just that by rising costs of energy.

[RandomGuy]

I'm very much a social liberal but an economic conservative. This is what Libertarianism was supposed to be, but I think has lost it's way.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151247&highlight=party+rally

Religious fundamentalism happened. A lack of science education, and an over-emphasis on materialism.

I think the human tendency towards pseudo-science and conspiracy theory has cost us a great deal. Very hard to overcome self-indoctrination.

The internet doesn't help with it's tendency towards ideological circle-jerks.

[Wild Cobra]

Why does anyone need a study to show fiscal liberals don't understand basic economics?

If they did, they would no longer be fiscally liberal.

[Upstate]

Paul Krugman and Robert Reichhhhhhhhh?

Good Lord

They would hit you over the head with their nobel prize if they heard you say that.

[PixelPusher]

This doesn't surprise me at all. In the case of the student's I've had, I think the more extreme liberal ones have the hardest time reconciling economics with their social ideals.

"Americans in the first three categories do reasonably well. But the left has trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics."

That is an amazingly on-point statement. My favorite example I use in my classes is I have everyone raise their hand who thinks it would be great to have a world with zero pollution. Most students, even the most conservative, raise their hands (I mean, who wouldn't?) - the only ones who don't are the ones who seem to think it's a trick into converting them to being an environmentalist (I presume... who knows what these kids are thinking?).

We can have a world with zero pollution - but there is an opportunity cost. That OC entails pretty much everything we've come to know in modern life. In 6 years of teaching at the university level, only one student has kept their hand up when willing to give up everything to live a primative, pollution-free existence (he thought the idea of living in naked in mud huts was awesome... he was probably high at the time).

I do notice conservative students suffer from the same problem of reconciling economics with political ideals, especially when dealing with welfare economics (this isn't the economics of a welfare system but the economics of maximizing the total well being of society as a whole), but not nearly to the same degree.

Modern liberals (generalizing big time here) put social issues over economics, which is admirable but not practical or smart.

Modern conservatives put economics over social liberty, which is practical but a bit cruel and almost sociopathic.

I'm very much a social liberal but an economic conservative. This is what Libertarianism was supposed to be, but I think has lost it's way.

pretty much along those same lines: (http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/05/the-new-issue-of-econ-journal-watch.html)


My own view is that "who in the general public understands economics best" is very sensitive to which questions we ask. Libertarian-leaning voters have a better understanding of government failure, but left-leaning voters are more likely to understand adverse selection or aggregate demand management. Which is a more important topic? That may depend on the researcher's own point of view. What's the closest we can come to a value-neutral test of whether elites or the "common man" understand economic reasoning better?

[EVAY]

The actual title here should be "What we have here is a failure to communicate".


What these folks measured was not economic intelligence or education, but the extent to which the respondents 'liked', 'disliked', 'agreed', or 'disagreed' with conventional financial orthodoxy as taught in most B-schools.

The far left may or may not know the textbook answers, but they DO NOT LIKE them, and their belief structure is at odds with the results of those who have practiced American style Capitalism for the last 30 - 40 years or so.

They are not, as some suggest, ignorant or stupid, but they DO think very differently wbout how the world OUGHT to work.

I went to school with a bunch of them. They remain as committed to their 'ideals' today as they ever were, regardless of their success level in life.

They just think differently, man. They really do.

[angrydude]

They would hit you over the head with their nobel prize if they heard you say that.

This is obviously just the debate of whether Keynesian economics is full of shit or not. It is. So are they.

I also have no doubt they are both really good at math. Too bad that doesn't make their business cycle theory true. When you build on faulty assumptions about the world, you tend to be wrong a lot no matter how fancy your model.

[johnsmith]

Well, I'll take my economic know how up against any board member outside of Scott. Fuck that guy.

:lmao Good to see you're still a douche.

[DMX7]

LOL Wall Street Journal.

[ElNono]

LOL Wall Street Journal.

I don't mind the journal. I think it's a fine publication.
What's misleading is not indicating that this is an opinion piece.

[Trainwreck2100]

like repubs are any better, they hear "tax hike" and pick up the pitchforks and torches

[Blake]

What's misleading is not indicating that this is an opinion piece.

they were very coy about it:



A response was counted as incorrect only if it was flatly unenlightened.

[Winehole23]

Back in June 2010, I published a Wall Street Journal op-ed arguing that the American left was unenlightened, by and large, as to economic matters. Responding to a set of survey questions that tested people’s real-world understanding of basic economic principles, self-identified progressives and liberals did much worse than conservatives and libertarians, I reported. To sharpen the ax, The Journal titled the piece “Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?”—the implication being that people on the left were not.



The op-ed set off fireworks. On The Journal’s Web site, the piece peaked at No.2 in most-e-mailed for the month it was published. The Examiner, in Washington, D.C., ran two opinion pieces in response, one approving and one critical. (The latter noted, correctly, that conservatives were “happily disseminating the results across the right-wing blogosphere.”) The Washington Times reported, “Liberals Livid Over Economic Enlightenment Gauge.” My inbox exploded with messages haranguing me for cynically rigging my results or blessing me for providing proof of a long-suspected truth.



The Wall Street Journal piece was based on an article that Zeljka Buturovic and I had published in Econ Journal Watch, a journal that I edit. In short order, more than 10,000 people downloaded a PDF of the scholarly article. The attention, while slightly unnerving, was also pleasing, and I’ll confess that I found the study results congenial: I’m a libertarian, and I found it easy to believe that people on the left had an especially bad grasp of economics.



But one year later, in May 2011, Buturovic and I published a new scholarly article reporting on a new survey. It turned out that I needed to retract the conclusions I’d trumpeted in The Wall Street Journal. The new results invalidated our original result: under the right circumstances, conservatives and libertarians were as likely as anyone on the left to give wrong answers to economic questions. The proper inference from our work is not that one group is more enlightened, or less. It’s that “myside bias”—the tendency to judge a statement according to how conveniently it fits with one’s settled position—is pervasive among all of America’s political groups. The bias is seen in the data, and in my actions.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/12/i-was-wrong-and-so-are-you/8713/#

[Winehole23]

Shouldn’t a college professor have known better? Perhaps. But adjusting for bias and groupthink is not so easy, as indicated by one of the major conclusions developed by Buturovic and sustained in our joint papers. Education had very little impact on responses, we found; survey respondents who’d gone to college did only slightly less badly than those who hadn’t. Among members of less-educated groups, brighter people tend to respond more frequently to online surveys, so it’s likely that our sample of non-college-educated respondents is more enlightened than the larger group they represent. Still, the fact that a college education showed almost no effect—at least for those inclined to take such a survey—strongly suggests that the classroom is no great corrective for myside bias. At least when it comes to public-policy issues, the corrective value of professional academic experience might be doubted as well.



Discourse affords some opportunity to challenge the judgments of others and to revise our own. Yet inevitably, somewhere in the process, we place what faith we have.
ibid

[ElNono]

Surprised Darrin didn't get this on his email list...

[101A]

"Myside Bias".

Gonna use that.

Good find, WH.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I would rather discuss the actual policy platforms as defined by our two parties. Discussing the fringe is great and most everyone agrees that total nationalization of industry is bad bit with that I have two words:

Supply side.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fucking necros.

[LnGrrrR]

:lol

This poll has fail written all over it. Not surprised DarrinS posted it. Not surprised it comes from the highly liberal WSJ Op-Ed page either.

[CosmicCowboy]

so the govt mandating homes meet a certain level of safety makes the home more expensive...... equaling less affordable. So I guess conservatives don't need housing code standards because it makes the house more expensive? Therefore housing code regs are unecessary because they make homes unaffordable....

straw man

[DarrinS]

So, the conclusion is that EVERYONE suffers from confirmation bias.

I'm flattered that WH recalls threads I started over a year ago. I can't say I recall any of his.

[Drachen]

straw man

I will be honest, I thought it was pretty weak myself.

[Winehole23]

So, the conclusion is that EVERYONE suffers from confirmation bias.Wow, you actually read this time. CAn you see the relation it bears to grasping the obvious?

I'm flattered that WH recalls threads I started over a year ago. I can't say I recall any of his.Suits me fine.

[ChumpDumper]

lol not exploited

[LnGrrrR]

But one year later, in May 2011, Buturovic and I published a new scholarly article reporting on a new survey. It turned out that I needed to retract the conclusions I’d trumpeted in The Wall Street Journal. The new results invalidated our original result: under the right circumstances, conservatives and libertarians were as likely as anyone on the left to give wrong answers to economic questions. The proper inference from our work is not that one group is more enlightened, or less. It’s that “myside bias”—the tendency to judge a statement according to how conveniently it fits with one’s settled position—is pervasive among all of America’s political groups. The bias is seen in the data, and in my actions.



This just goes to show how stupid smart people can be. It's pretty obvious the poll is biased from the first question mentioned.

[101A]

This just goes to show how stupid smart people can be. It's pretty obvious the poll is biased from the first question mentioned.


True, but how many posters on this board have issued a mea culpa so complete and heartfelt as the author? He has my respect.

[LnGrrrR]

I mean, shit, look at this question:



Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree).


And this guy couldn't see the bias inherent in that question? Really?

[LnGrrrR]

True, but how many posters on this board have issued a mea culpa so complete and heartfelt as the author? He has my respect.

Agreed, but it's astounding to me that he didn't see the bias in the original article. I might as well come up with a poll with my "unenlightened answers"... how about...

1) All GTMO detainees are terrorists. (Unenlighted answer: Agree)
2) Warrantless wiretapping is essential to protecting our freedoms. (Unenlighted answer: Agree)
3) Being a Republican means never having to think (Unenlighted answer: Disagree)
4) Only fools believe in God (Unenlighted answer: Disagree)
5) Having historically large gaps between haves and havenots has never lead to revolution (Unenlighted answer: Disagree)

Then a year later I can come back to the thread and apologize for my stupidity.

[greyforest]

Look at these questions. What a joke.

1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree).
2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree).
For 18-25 year-olds? HAhahahahaahhahahahhahahahaahh.
3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree).
4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree).
What a butt-fuckingly stupid question. If the company controls over 50% of the market share it is.
5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree).
Are you shitting me? You don't think the children in Chinese sweatshops are being exploited?
6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree).
Free trade leads to unpaid internships...NOBODY is unemployed now, they are all unpaid laborers!
7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree).
Again, remove all minimum wage laws so we can have slaves again! Everyone is an employed, unpaid laborer!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I can't say I recall any of his.

I guess after awhile the constant logical inconsistencies and bullshit is hard to keep up with. You started this thread. Thats sad.

[RandomGuy]

Re-reading the thread, I was struck by a couple of comments:




Oddly though, a surprising number of conservatives who post in boards tend to not do too well when it comes to that stuff either. The advocates of free markets, while generally on board with most economic topics tend to miss out on some important things like negative externalities, and how monopolies and oligopolies can distort free markets to produce less-than-desirable outcomes.


I do notice conservative students suffer from the same problem of reconciling economics with political ideals, especially when dealing with welfare economics (this isn't the economics of a welfare system but the economics of maximizing the total well being of society as a whole), but not nearly to the same degree.


Here’s what we came up with, again with the incorrect response in parentheses:
a dollar means more to a poor person than it does to a rich person (disagree);
making abortion illegal would increase the number of black-market abortions (disagree);
legalizing drugs would give more wealth and power to street gangs and organized crime (agree);
drug prohibition fails to reduce people’s access to drugs (agree);
gun-control laws fail to reduce people’s access to guns (agree);
by participating in the marketplace in the United States, immigrants reduce the economic well-being of American citizens (agree);
when a country goes to war, its citizens experience an improvement in economic well-being (agree);
when two people complete a voluntary transaction, they both necessarily come away better off (agree);
when two people complete a voluntary transaction, it is necessarily the case that everyone else is unaffected by their transaction (agree).

Buturovic began putting all 17 questions to a new group of respondents last December. I eagerly awaited the results, hoping that the conservatives and especially the libertarians (my side!) would exhibit less myside bias. Buturovic was more detached. She e-mailed me the results, and commented that conservatives and libertarians did not do well on the new questions. After a hard look, I realized that they had bombed on the questions that challenged their position. A full tabulation of all 17 questions showed that no group clearly out-stupids the others. They appear about equally stupid when faced with proper challenges to their position.

Researchers discover data supporting general anecdotal observations of economics professor and accountant. Yay.

[RandomGuy]

Does this mean someone gets to post a thread:

"New study confirms: Conservatives don't understand economics?"

[scott]

Re-reading the thread, I was struck by a couple of comments:








Researchers discover data supporting general anecdotal observations of economics professor and accountant. Yay.

Great find WH and RG.

I must admit, I didn't fully read the study in the OP and thus missed the actual questions asked. When this thread got bumped, I didn't realize it was old and the first thought when I read the headline and OP was "well, what were the questions"?

I am fairly confident in my ability to construct a set of 5-questions that I could get anyone to get the majority wrong, so long as I knew they were more conservative or liberal going in - and they could be completely subjective (the questions asked were mostly subjective, but some slightly objective and all worded in a very subjective manner).

Interesting study, and more interesting how we nailed it.

[scott]

Look at these questions. What a joke.

1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree).
2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree).
For 18-25 year-olds? HAhahahahaahhahahahhahahahaahh.
3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree).
4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree).
What a butt-fuckingly stupid question. If the company controls over 50% of the market share it is.
5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree).
Are you shitting me? You don't think the children in Chinese sweatshops are being exploited?
6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree).
Free trade leads to unpaid internships...NOBODY is unemployed now, they are all unpaid laborers!
7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree).
Again, remove all minimum wage laws so we can have slaves again! Everyone is an employed, unpaid laborer!

Based on your responses to these questions, you fail as well.

2) The question said "overall." It's even the first word of the sentence. By any objective measure, the answer is yes.
4) Having 50% or more market share doesn't make a company a monopoly.
5) This is one of the questions that I found misplaced, because it doesn't contain enough info to answer. Some are being exploited, some aren't.
6) Free trade in and of itself does not lead to unemployment, but this is kind of a dumb question because it forces the reader to make a subjective call rather than having an objective basis for answering (doesn't have enough info).
7) It's is overwhelmingly agreed that minimum wage laws do result in higher unemployment amongst the unskilled and young, though it is also agreed that this can be a worthy trade-off in many cases.

[Wild Cobra]

Liberals understand economics. They just want to destroy the America most of us love. It's the libtards who don't understand economics, and follow the puppet masters.

[ChumpDumper]

lol destroy

lol puppet

[ChumpDumper]

lol destroy

lol puppet

[LnGrrrR]

Based on your responses to these questions, you fail as well.

2) The question said "overall." It's even the first word of the sentence. By any objective measure, the answer is yes.
4) Having 50% or more market share doesn't make a company a monopoly.
5) This is one of the questions that I found misplaced, because it doesn't contain enough info to answer. Some are being exploited, some aren't.
6) Free trade in and of itself does not lead to unemployment, but this is kind of a dumb question because it forces the reader to make a subjective call rather than having an objective basis for answering (doesn't have enough info).
7) It's is overwhelmingly agreed that minimum wage laws do result in higher unemployment amongst the unskilled and young, though it is also agreed that this can be a worthy trade-off in many cases.

I think you encapsulated the problems with some of those questions there Scott. When you hear the first question, you're not keying on "Overall", you're keying on what the standard of living for your age category is compared to the same category a few years ago. After all, it's a survey question; it's not like it's a certification test where you're actively looking for those qualifiers.

With the exploitation question, it comes down to perspective. The foreign worker working in (to us) deplorable situations may not feel exploited because there's no high standards set for safety in that country. But to us, it certainly feels like the company is exploiting the fact that they live in a country with less protections.

The free trade questions is biased towards those who support unions and American jobs, because as with the "standard of living" question, most people are thinking about American jobs, not jobs worldwide. So while free trade doesn't lead to unemployment in total, free trade in America has led to loss of those jobs, which people see as unemployment.

I really have no clue how they didn't see those questions were biased.

[scott]

Liberals understand economics. They just want to destroy the America most of us love. It's the libtards who don't understand economics, and follow the puppet masters.

You also don't understand economics (among other things), and its obvious by your posts.

To quote myself:


You are a fucking idiot.

[scott]

I think you encapsulated the problems with some of those questions there Scott. When you hear the first question, you're not keying on "Overall", you're keying on what the standard of living for your age category is compared to the same category a few years ago. After all, it's a survey question; it's not like it's a certification test where you're actively looking for those qualifiers.

With the exploitation question, it comes down to perspective. The foreign worker working in (to us) deplorable situations may not feel exploited because there's no high standards set for safety in that country. But to us, it certainly feels like the company is exploiting the fact that they live in a country with less protections.

The free trade questions is biased towards those who support unions and American jobs, because as with the "standard of living" question, most people are thinking about American jobs, not jobs worldwide. So while free trade doesn't lead to unemployment in total, free trade in America has led to loss of those jobs, which people see as unemployment.

I really have no clue how they didn't see those questions were biased.

I agree with your entire post. I probably didn't clarify that enough earlier - but that's what I was getting at that I feel confident I could build surveys or tests that ensure a failure rate among a certain group. Garbage in, garbage out.

[CosmicCowboy]

I agree with your entire post. I probably didn't clarify that enough earlier - but that's what I was getting at that I feel confident I could build surveys or tests that ensure a failure rate among a certain group. Garbage in, garbage out.

Agree with both of you.

That is why these endless polls drive me crazy because so many of them craft the questions to confirm a premise. Right AND Left.

[greyforest]

Agree with both of you.

That is why these endless polls drive me crazy because so many of them craft the questions to confirm a premise. Right AND Left.

Personally I would have thought that by now everyone would be tired of pigeonholing every ideological premise and person in to an ambiguous linear scale that ranges from "RIGHT" to "LEFT".

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Personally I would have thought that by now everyone would be tired of pigeonholing every ideological premise and person in to an ambiguous linear scale that ranges from "RIGHT" to "LEFT".

Its the two party system at work.

[RandomGuy]

Personally I would have thought that by now everyone would be tired of pigeonholing every ideological premise and person in to an ambiguous linear scale that ranges from "RIGHT" to "LEFT".

Well the political compass.org thing does add another dimension.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

I always end up where the Dalai Lama is.

[Winehole23]

caveat: correlation is not causation and politicians don't control the economy. I'm posting this in hopes it makes DarrinS's head explode, nothing more. I do what I can.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/80-year-study-democrats-better-at-economics/article/2505194

[DarrinS]

Digging through the archives again

[spursncowboys]

Are we talking about economists who work as economists? Or just having a degree and an opinion?

[spursncowboys]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/the-top-10-most-influential-economists-of-all-time
the 10 most influential economists of all time.

[Yonivore]

so the govt mandating homes meet a certain level of safety makes the home more expensive.
It does.


..... equaling less affordable. So I guess conservatives don't need housing code standards because it makes the house more expensive? Therefore housing code regs are unecessary because they make homes unaffordable....
It's not a binary choice, George. Recognizing that government regulation increases costs in indisputable. But, reasonable people recognize the need for some government intervention -- building codes may be one of those areas. It is for me.

Having said that, I believe building codes have become so cumbersome and specific that they more resemble a DOD contract specification than something intended to ensure a safely and soundly constructed building.

Besides, I would trust a panel of architects, engineers, and contractors to develop a building standard than a panel of government employees some of whom (or all of whom) may have limited experience in any of those areas.

I'm not in any of these occupations but, if I'm not mistaken, all three have standards set by their own members yet, governments will employ people to re-write the standards and enforce them in ways that lack common sense.

[Winehole23]

Digging through the archives againI love how you hate that.

[DarrinS]

I love how you hate that.

Lol

[baseline bum]

Well the political compass.org thing does add another dimension.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

I always end up where the Dalai Lama is.

According to that page

http://i.imgur.com/IC4t1.png

Some election we have

[TE]

According to that page

http://i.imgur.com/IC4t1.png

Some election we have

crofl that's about right

[Wild Cobra]

Well the political compass.org thing does add another dimension.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

I always end up where the Dalai Lama is.

That is not a good political compass test. How do you answer the one or other questions when you disagree with both?

[symple19]

lulz

Here's mine

http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdgraphpng.php?Rick_Santorum=7.0%2C8.5&Newt_Gingrich=8.0%2C7.5&Mitt_Romney=7.0%2C6.5&Ron_Paul=9.0%2C-1.0&Barack_Obama=6.0%2C6.0&You=-4.5%2C-5.5%3Cdiv%20style=

[Wild Cobra]

Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.
Really now...

Controlling?

What if I wish not to control either and let the natural laws work?

[Wild Cobra]

Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.
Loaded question.

The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs.
Bullshit. There is more to life than working.

People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce.
Really now. Nobody should reproduce who cannot support a family. Disabilities should not be a reason unless the disability requires dependance on others.

The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline.
Important yes. Most important, no.

In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation.
It depends on the crime itself.

LOL...

Can you guys believe what it says about me:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-1.38&soc=-1.95

[DAF86]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-7.00&soc=-6.92

[DAF86]

BTW the article in the OP is retarded, I don't know how could anyone thought that was an article worth publishing.

You know this is shit when under this article's premise if somebody would have responded "not sure" to everything they would have gotten 0 incorrect answers.

[DAF86]

I'm doing a study to see how many of you understand life on planet Earth, please answer these questions:

1) Prostitutes are criminals.
2) Men are naturally sexually attracted to women.
3) God exists.
4) Bathing increases the odds of having sex.
5) Hugo Chavez is a dictator.
6) Amare Stoudamire and Boris Diaw were rightly suspended for one game in the 2007 NBA playoffs.

Please answer choosing one of these options: 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure. And explicit your political leanings.

Thanks in advance.

[Clipper Nation]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=7.88&soc=-7.13

[Yonivore]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=3.38&soc=-3.03

[Clipper Nation]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=3.38&soc=-3.03

:lmao :lmao :lmao

Now, if you had answered those questions honestly, you'd be right up there in the blue box with Willard and Obama, tbh... :lol

[Yonivore]

:lmao :lmao :lmao

Now, if you had answered those questions honestly, you'd be right up there in the blue box with Willard and Obama, tbh... :lol
I did and, apparently not. I will say, a lot of the questions were poorly constructed but, I answered the honestly.

[CuckingFunt]

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/2017/pcgraphpngt.png

[CuckingFunt]

So far I'm the most libertarian of all.



Ya bunch of fascists...

[ElNono]

http://i48.tinypic.com/w88bab.png

[Winehole23]

mine always end up something like this:

Economic Left/Right: 0.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=0.12&soc=-6.15

[LnGrrrR]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-1.00&soc=-5.38