Study shows Liberals have different view of basic economics

[loumeinhart 0]

DISCLAIMER: I'm not bashing Libs! I heard this study on a conservative talk show today and thought it was very interesting.

I'm just throwing this out for some pleasant on-line debate..

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

DISCLAIMER: I'm not bashing Libs! I heard this study on a conservative talk show today and thought it was very interesting.

I'm just throwing this out for some pleasant on-line debate..

Aside from the fact that it is a RW rag, rendering it useless as data or anything scientific must be objective, random and of a large sample size, the questions are either opinion-based or theory.

Trickle down theory is still prevalent, even tho no one has ever posted 1 major federal tax cut that has led to prosperity for most. Hoover tried it, 2 1/2 years later he signed the largest-ever tax increase; from 25% to 63% as he basically admitted 'tax cuts my friends' is bullshit. Reagan treid it, cut the top marginal brkt from 70% to 28% over 6 years and the debt tripled while tax receipts didn't keep up with outlays. Clinton increased taxes from 31% to 40% top brkt and receipts went several-fold of outlays.

Only a moron thinks tax cuts lead to prosperity. Someone post 1 occurrence, then post several. Even if there was one occurrence, that doesn't prove a trend but an occurrence. I can post several times where increased taxes lead to debt payment and properity for the masses. I can post where tax cuts and deregulation have led to disaster, teh Great Repiblican Depression is 1, the Great Republican recession is another.

Theory is fun to banter about, application is real. I'm doing major engine mods to my little shitbox car, all kinds of people are offerring theories from 'it will blow up' to 'you need to do X Y Z or it wont work, but the truth is that I won't know until I get it going and ram it.

They have data to show their % of who they find right or wrong, but no data or any kind of support to establish their theories of economics. This article is just propaganda.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

It's a flawed "study" by a well-known Libertarian kook.

CLICKY

[quade 3]

Quote

DISCLAIMER: I'm not bashing Libs! I heard this study on a conservative talk show today and thought it was very interesting.

Gimme the raw data and I bet I can use it to support any statement you could possibly want to get out of it.

How do I know? They had to include this bit of non-sense:

Quote

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.

The article is statistical bullshit. In my opinion, if you don't recognize a bullshit statistic, you're probably very "unenlightened."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Yeah, Paul. "Unenlightened" is another of those highly subjective matters.

It's like saying that a candidate who meets all requirements for the job is "unqualified." Or a judicial nominee is not in the "mainstream." Or that a VP candidate is "stupid."

It's an odd thing - righties adopting lefty tactics.

Then again, most questions appear to have pretty obvious objective wrong answers - the kinds of things that are easily understood unless reality does not fit with one's religious ideals of utopia...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

DISCLAIMER: I'm not bashing Libs! I heard this study on a conservative talk show today and thought it was very interesting.

I'm just throwing this out for some pleasant on-line debate..

Aside from the fact that it is a RW rag, rendering it useless as data or anything scientific must be objective, random and of a large sample size, the questions are either opinion-based or theory.

If you had read the column, you would have seen this:

Quote

Mr. Klein is a professor of economics at George Mason University. This op-ed is based on an article published in the May 2010 issue of the journal he edits, Econ Journal Watch, a project sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research. The article is at: http://econjwatch.org/articles/economic-enlightenment-in-relation-to-college-going-ideology-and-other-variables-a-zogby-survey-of-americans

Quote

Trickle down theory is still prevalent, even tho no one has ever posted 1 major federal tax cut that has led to prosperity for most. Hoover tried it, 2 1/2 years later he signed the largest-ever tax increase; from 25% to 63% as he basically admitted 'tax cuts my friends' is bullshit. Reagan treid it, cut the top marginal brkt from 70% to 28% over 6 years and the debt tripled while tax receipts didn't keep up with outlays. Clinton increased taxes from 31% to 40% top brkt and receipts went several-fold of outlays.

What you missed in President Clinton's terms was that capital gains taxes were cut massively, and the revenue through that vehicle rose dramatically.

Quote

They have data to show their % of who they find right or wrong, but no data or any kind of support to establish their theories of economics. This article is just propaganda.

They didn't need to establish theories of economics because the precepts noted are not theories. Controls do not reduce costs/obstacles.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Aside from the fact that it is a RW rag, rendering it useless as data or anything scientific must be objective, random and of a large sample size, the questions are either opinion-based or theory.

the sample size was appropriate. (4835 respondants)

Some of the questions published seemed to me to be pretty objective. (things like restrictions on production of goods would tend to increase the prices of those goods -- it's simple supply & demand, reduce the supply, and the price goes up.) Others were not.

Throwing out half the questions before publishing the results is unacceptable. Whatever the motivation and results of the culling, it looks like they picked the 8 questions that gave the results they wanted.

Once again, numbers can be misleading without exposing the underlying questions, sample size, and analysis involved. This is why I tend to completely disregard these type of published numbers. (when published by someone who has ANYTHING to gain from the results they publish)

--
Rob

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The article is statistical bullshit.

a fluff piece, no issue with that


So how would you and Lucky answer all 8 of those questions?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What you missed in President Clinton's terms was that capital gains taxes were cut massively, and the revenue through that vehicle rose dramatically.

thanks to one of the biggest speculative bubbles our market has ever seen, culminating in the dot-bomb crash.

[billvon 2,427]

>1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of
>those services

Agreed. In the absence of any other factors, adding cost to a business increases the cost of their products.

>2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago

Agreed.

>3) Rent control leads to housing shortages

Disagree as a blanket statement. Rent control tends to limit investment in housing - but that in and of itself does not lead to housing shortages unless exacerbated by an increasing population (for example.)

>4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly

Disagree. Only if it has a _controlling_ share is it a monopoly.

>5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are
>being exploited

Some are, some aren't. No right answer for this one.

>6) Free trade leads to unemployment

Disagree. That in and of itself does not cause unemployment, although it can be a factor (i.e. US jobs lost to Mexico due to a free trade agreement.)

>7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment

In general, agree, although this is not universally true.

[champu 1]

Agree/Disagree questions that were included:

Quote

I1) Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable.
I2) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services.
I3) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago.
I4) Rent control leads to housing shortages.
I5) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly.
I6) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited.
I7) Free trade leads to unemployment.
I8) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment.

Agree/Disagree questions that were excluded (on the premise that, "they are not as useful in gauging economic enlightenment, either because the question is too vague or too narrowly factual, or because the enlightened answer is too uncertain or arguable."):

Quote

E1) Poverty causes crime.
E2) Business contracts benefit all parties.
E3) Private property protections primarily benefit the well-off.
E4) More often than not, employers who discriminate in employee hiring will be punished by the market.
E5) In the USA, more often than not, rich people were born rich.
E6) Consumption grows the economy.
E7) Economic development makes things more affordable.
E8) Foreign aid helps economic growth of recipient countries.

To put it bluntly, this study is all manners of jacked up. All but a few of the 16 questions could be excluded based on their stated criteria (and not all of those are in the included list.)

The somewhat/strongly nonsense only makes matters worse, especially for questions like I5 where the "correct" answer is (... [shrugs] maybe?) or questions like I6 where it depends on whether you attach a negative connotation to the word "exploited."

I think the best you could do even if you had the raw data from the survey would be to determine what groups were more modest about their economic prowess by giving credit to answers of, "not sure."

[BDashe 0]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704113504575264513748386610.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#printMode

"In 1981, Ronald Reagan—with bipartisan support—began the first phase in a series of tax cuts passed under the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA), whereby the bulk of the tax cuts didn't take effect until Jan. 1, 1983. Reagan's delayed tax cuts were the mirror image of President Barack Obama's delayed tax rate increases. For 1981 and 1982 people deferred so much economic activity that real GDP was basically flat (i.e., no growth), and the unemployment rate rose to well over 10%.

But at the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 1983 the economy took off like a rocket, with average real growth reaching 7.5% in 1983 and 5.5% in 1984. It has always amazed me how tax cuts don't work until they take effect. Mr. Obama's experience with deferred tax rate increases will be the reverse. The economy will collapse in 2011."

So there I was...

Making friends and playing nice since 1983

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704113504575264513748386610.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#printMode

"In 1981, Ronald Reagan—with bipartisan support—began the first phase in a series of tax cuts passed under the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA), whereby the bulk of the tax cuts didn't take effect until Jan. 1, 1983. Reagan's delayed tax cuts were the mirror image of President Barack Obama's delayed tax rate increases. For 1981 and 1982 people deferred so much economic activity that real GDP was basically flat (i.e., no growth), and the unemployment rate rose to well over 10%.

But at the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 1983 the economy took off like a rocket, with average real growth reaching 7.5% in 1983 and 5.5% in 1984. It has always amazed me how tax cuts don't work until they take effect. Mr. Obama's experience with deferred tax rate increases will be the reverse. The economy will collapse in 2011."

Here's another view. CLICKY

[BDashe 0]

Tax increases across the board does not stimulate the economy. If the upper tax bracket stuffs all their money away when new taxes affect them, no one wins. Think big picture, not individuals with lots of money. If the majority of money in america gets locked away and protected...

I don't think his prediction of a huge collapse is going to happen, but i'd wager it certainly will prolong the current issues. Then again, laffer is a genius who has studied, created, and implimented modern economic theory...

So there I was...

Making friends and playing nice since 1983

[loumeinhart 0]

Interesting analysis from all,

I appreciate the study results because it seems that my liberal friends, many of whom are educated, seem to understand basic economics but put their more liberal ideals first. An example: I attended a baseball game last night (cleve vs boston) and there was a gentleman working a beer stand that apparantly didn't care about his job and was giving away beer on the sly.

My friend who is quite liberal exclaimed how "awesome" that was and how it's great when you can just say "screw it" to your employer on a summer job and do what you want because your going to be "fired anyway".

It seems interesting that while he is well educated in economics, his "radical free spirit" ideals trumped the core principals of basic economics. IE a beerstand that loses money will not be able to stay in business and it's employees will be out of a job.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

I wonder how many skydivers, liberal, conservative, libertarian, or whatever, have called in sick on a sunny day so they could go jumping? Do you think conservatives are less likely to do so than liberals?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[pirana 0]

Quote

I wonder how many skydivers, liberal, conservative, libertarian, or whatever, have called in sick on a sunny day so they could go jumping? Do you think conservatives are less likely to do so than liberals?

Don

I think skydivers are more likely to do so than any of them.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

DISCLAIMER: I'm not bashing Libs! I heard this study on a conservative talk show today and thought it was very interesting.

I'm just throwing this out for some pleasant on-line debate..

What's enlightening is that someone thought they needed a study to figure this out. Kinda like those pop-psych questionaires that enlighten people about themselves.

A huge DUH! If questions like those provide anyone anything close to something resembling insight they are living in an awareness vacumm.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

What's enlightening is that someone thought they needed a study to figure this out.

And, of course, a couple hundred thousand dollars in research grant money (from the government ) to continue it.......

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Interesting analysis from all,

I appreciate the study results because it seems that my liberal friends, many of whom are educated, seem to understand basic economics but put their more liberal ideals first. An example: I attended a baseball game last night (cleve vs boston) and there was a gentleman working a beer stand that apparantly didn't care about his job and was giving away beer on the sly.

My friend who is quite liberal exclaimed how "awesome" that was and how it's great when you can just say "screw it" to your employer on a summer job and do what you want because your going to be "fired anyway".

It seems interesting that while he is well educated in economics, his "radical free spirit" ideals trumped the core principals of basic economics. IE a beerstand that loses money will not be able to stay in business and it's employees will be out of a job.

Free beer = an attitude of entitlement. I know plenty of hard RWers who would take teh free beer and not make some silly political-economic statement of it. I don't drink, what kind of silly political assessment would you make of that if Iwere there?

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

What's enlightening is that someone thought they needed a study to figure this out.

And, of course, a couple hundred thousand dollars in research grant money (from the government ) to continue it.......

A few $hundred thousand invested in research in the basic economics of derivatives, CDSs, CMOs, CDOs, etc. a few years ago would look like a very good investment now.

I wonder how many of the Wall Street Whizzes that brought us the recession were liberals?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I wonder how many of the Wall Street Whizzes that brought us the recession were liberals?

I polling data is any indication, somewhere between 49% and 51% - depending on the topic......

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704113504575264513748386610.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#printMode

"In 1981, Ronald Reagan—with bipartisan support—began the first phase in a series of tax cuts passed under the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA), whereby the bulk of the tax cuts didn't take effect until Jan. 1, 1983. Reagan's delayed tax cuts were the mirror image of President Barack Obama's delayed tax rate increases. For 1981 and 1982 people deferred so much economic activity that real GDP was basically flat (i.e., no growth), and the unemployment rate rose to well over 10%.

But at the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 1983 the economy took off like a rocket, with average real growth reaching 7.5% in 1983 and 5.5% in 1984. It has always amazed me how tax cuts don't work until they take effect. Mr. Obama's experience with deferred tax rate increases will be the reverse. The economy will collapse in 2011."

What you posted is not data, but interpretation from a RW maggotted site, so let's keep that real. That is WSJ's interpretation / opinion, not fact per se.

The reason for the 10.8% in 82-83 was due mostly because the fed chairman, with the blessing of Reagan, contracted the money supply to try to kill stagflation. This, of course caused a lot of sufferring at the lower end of the food chain, something that Reagan cares not about.

Reagan didn't commit stimulus for the poor and MC, he catered to the rich and let them decide when the poor and MC could prosper.

There is some truth to your cut-n-paste; cater to the rich, give them gvo $$ via massive tax cuts and they will, at their own time, decide to benefit teh economy. This is corporatist fascism where the gov gives control to the corporations via huge tax cuts.

But to say that Reaganomics worked you would have to look at all the massive spending, which blew up pretty much the moment Reagan took office. I WOULD ATTRIBUTE ANY FISCAL INCREASE IN ACTIVITY TO ALL OF TEH MASSIVE SPENDING UNDER "SMALLER GOVERNMENT" REAGAN. But of course maggotted WSJ won't factor that in. If you spend enough money it will give teh illusion of wealth and prosperity, the trick is have higher receipts while not spending all of that gov money, as did Clinton. REAGAN'S TAX RECEIPTS DIDN'T = HIS OUTLAYS, RENDERING WSJ'S INTERPRETATION IMPOTENT. GWB's tax receipts were a fraction of his outlays after his tax cuts, SO I'M STILL WAITING FOR A TAX CUT THAT LED TO PROSPERITY.

The only way you can make tax cuts maybe look like they lead to prosperity is if you take things in very abstract microcosmic samples. Step back and look at the lovely Reagan years:

- Inherited a sluggish economy and high inflation

- Inherited a stable debt picture that was very manageable

- Cut taxes from 70% to 28% top brkt in 6 years while he blew up spending - tripling the debt

- Receipts didn't = outlays, meaning he was a fiscal failure


This is the macro picture, if you want to pretend gross gov spending, which led to artificial success that never was, considering receipts didn't match outlays, was success, well, as FR would say, there ya go again.

If you wanna see success as a model, look at the CLinton years. Spending increased 20% TOTAl over 8 years, matching inflation and population growth, receipts shit thru the roof. The 12 years of straight 250B/yr debt increase turned horizonatal with a 236B surplus. I guess you call that failure tho.

I'll be patiently awaiting your next cut-n-pasty

[billvon 2,427]

>I wonder how many skydivers, liberal, conservative, libertarian, or
>whatever, have called in sick on a sunny day so they could go jumping?

I'd bet about the same percentage. I'd also bet conservatives are more likely to condemn those who call in sick to do something else.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

> I'd also bet conservatives are more likely to condemn those who call in sick to do something else.

stereotypes and prejudices reigning supreme in your opinions today?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants