Study: Self-Identified "Progressives" Have Little Understanding of Economics

[IPorange]

Here are the questions asked:

1. Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable.

2. Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those
services.

3. Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago.

4. Rent control leads to housing shortages.

5. A company with the largest market share is a monopoly.

6. Third-world workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited.

7. Free trade leads to unemployment.

8. Minimum wage laws raise unemployment.

The only one that I think would invoke bias would be #6 due to its use of the term "exploited."

Hmm.... I wonder though, if some further left individuals would actually have an argument against some of these. Not saying they would be right, but I have heard some with an angle of truth before.

 

[lawgator1]

Here are the questions asked:

1. Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable.

2. Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those
services.

3. Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago.

4. Rent control leads to housing shortages.

5. A company with the largest market share is a monopoly.

6. Third-world workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited.

7. Free trade leads to unemployment.

8. Minimum wage laws raise unemployment.

The only one that I think would invoke bias would be #6 due to its use of the term "exploited."

Are you on drugs? Do you not see how loaded these are? Holy crap, you cannot be serious that only one of them reflects a bias.


This kind if chicanery passing off as science is an absolute joke.

 

[paul1454]

LOL. Did you bother to check out the authors of the study? Dan Klein's Homepage

So.....you think his views are extreme or somehow out of line with other economists?

 

[IPorange]

LOL. Did you bother to check out the authors of the study? Dan Klein's Homepage

LG, if you are going to call this guy out because of his personal beliefs, then there isn't an academic alive who would live up to your standard. Academics are real human beings with their own beliefs. He wouldn't be at a school like George Mason if he didn't follow proper standards of research and professional integrity.

 

[paul1454]

Hmm.... I wonder though, if some further left individuals would actually have an argument against some of these. Not saying they would be right, but I have heard some with an angle of truth before.

Maybe so. I probably have a different perspective with an economics background. These are things that were discussed so often I guess I stopped looking at them through a political lens and look at them based solely on their underlying economic principles.

 

[IPorange]

So.....you think his views are extreme or somehow out of line with other economists?

Good point. Many economists tend to be of a classically liberal nature, just like paleontologists tend to be inclined towards evolution. It's only natural.

 

[TennTradition]

LOL. Did you bother to check out the authors of the study? Dan Klein's Homepage

The better question is did you before you leveled your blanket criticism of their obvious bias? It's like saying that climate scientists who believe in climate change should be barred from doing climate science. If you want to attack the methodology, go ahead, but you are clearly leveling blanket criticism based on political or professional affiliation, which doesn't fly IMO.

 

[lawgator1]

So.....you think his views are extreme or somehow out of line with other economists?

That's not the point. He may well be right in all of his opinions. Every single one of them.

What I maintain, and what every other thinking person should agree with, is that it is not right to ask loaded questions, knowing that you will have a break along ideologicial lines, assume that your version of the question is correct, and therefore paint the people on the other side as sicentifically proven to be idiots.

Its disgusting. It is ANTI-scientific. It is educational and academic fraud.

 

[lawgator1]

The better question is did you before you leveled your blanket criticism of their obvious bias? It's like saying that climate scientists who believe in climate change should be barred from doing climate science. If you want to attack the methodology, go ahead, but you are clearly leveling blanket criticism based on political or professional affiliation, which doesn't fly IMO.

I am attacking the methodoolgy, which is beyond stupid. I am also attacking their representation of it as proving any freaking thing, when anyone with a modicum of sense knows it proves nothing.

Everythign they say may be true. But passing this off as proof of that is beyond ridiculous.

 

[IPorange]

Are you on drugs? Do you not see how loaded these are? Holy crap, you cannot be serious that only one of them reflects a bias.


This kind if chicanery passing off as science is an absolute joke.

That's all social science.


But seriously, go through each one and give your take (on the fairness of the question, and your answer). I am interested to hear.

 

[MG1968]

That's not the point. He may well be right in all of his opinions. Every single one of them.

What I maintain, and what every other thinking person should agree with, is that it is not right to ask loaded questions, knowing that you will have a break along ideologicial lines, assume that your version of the question is correct, and therefore paint the people on the other side as sicentifically proven to be idiots.

Its disgusting. It is ANTI-scientific. It is educational and academic fraud.

wow, you didn't throw in that it's racist...you must still be working on your first cup of bile.

 

[paul1454]

I am attacking the methodoolgy, which is beyond stupid. I am also attacking their representation of it as proving any freaking thing, when anyone with a modicum of sense knows it proves nothing.

Everythign they say may be true. But passing this off as proof of that is beyond ridiculous.

They aren't passing this off as representative of liberals and progressives at all. If you read the study you will see that they qualified their findings significantly. They simply reported the statistics of their survey. Sure, it was spun a little in the presentation on this board, but that wasn't the work of the authors. It was because I wanted to make it a little more controversial in order to spark a good discussion.

 

[TennTradition]

I will say this much, if the questions they asked are how you have to poll people about economics, and then rely on their answers to form your conclusions, I don't think that I could have ever survived being an economist. I would have to re-structure half of these questions....making them more complicated, and probably flying in the face of convention in these matters. Then, I would beat my head against my desk in trying to distill the information in an intellectually honest way.

 

[TennTradition]

I am attacking the methodoolgy, which is beyond stupid. I am also attacking their representation of it as proving any freaking thing, when anyone with a modicum of sense knows it proves nothing.

Everythign they say may be true. But passing this off as proof of that is beyond ridiculous.

Actually, you just laid out a blanket criticism of bias on the part of the blogger, author, peer reviewers, etc. without properly backing up the concerns with reasoned attack on the methodology. It smells of party homerism as IP put it.

 

[lawgator1]

I will say this much, if the questions they asked are how you have to poll people about economics, and then rely on their answers to form your conclusions, I don't think that I could have ever survived being an economist. I would have to re-structure half of these questions....making them more complicated, and probably flying in the face of convention in these matters. Then, I would beat my head against my desk in trying to distill the information in an intellectually honest way.

Thank you for that. The basic problem with this study is that it would be truly much more complicated to measure what they purport to measure.

 

[volinbham]

I understand: a blogger's interpretaton of the data; the bias in intepreting the answers; the inadequacy of the questions; that the questions do not measure what they purport to identify; the bias of the peers reviewing it; the assumptions being made going into it; the desire of the authors to prove the assumptions correct.

The assumption may well be correct. But the "study" is absolutely worthless as any type of scientifically valid representation of anything.

so you don't understand the peer review process, thanks for clearing that up.

 

[paul1454]

I will say this much, if the questions they asked are how you have to poll people about economics, and then rely on their answers to form your conclusions, I don't think that I could have ever survived being an economist. I would have to re-structure half of these questions....making them more complicated, and probably flying in the face of convention in these matters. Then, I would beat my head against my desk in trying to distill the information in an intellectually honest way.

I think it is equally difficult to get an accurate assessment of the population by way of difficult questions to which the general public would often not even understand what was being asked. I will say, when surveys are made of economic academics, the questions are MUCH different than those here.

 

[volinbham]

I will say this much, if the questions they asked are how you have to poll people about economics, and then rely on their answers to form your conclusions, I don't think that I could have ever survived being an economist. I would have to re-structure half of these questions....making them more complicated, and probably flying in the face of convention in these matters. Then, I would beat my head against my desk in trying to distill the information in an intellectually honest way.

I don't see them as polling questions - they are asking about basic economic relationships; distilled from economic theory.

Psychometrics often look this way.

 

[TennTradition]

I think it is equally difficult to get an accurate assessment of the population by way of difficult questions to which the general public would often not even understand what was being asked. I will say, when surveys are made of economic academics, the questions are MUCH different than those here.

I agree. That's why I said it would fly in the face of convention.

For me, "Free trade leads to unemploymnet." is a hard statement to answer. Free trade does lead to unemployment for some. It leads to employment for others. In the end, the idea is that it will raise employment for all, but the short term effect can be a net loss of jobs for some areas, net increase for others. At least, that's my take on it.

 

[volinbham]

I agree. That's why I said it would fly in the face of convention.

For me, "Free trade leads to unemploymnet." is a hard statement to answer. Free trade does lead to unemployment for some. It leads to employment for others. In the end, the idea is that it will raise employment for all, but the short term effect can be a net loss of jobs for some areas, net increase for others. At least, that's my take on it.

I can see that. The underlying economic principle is that it leads to employment growth and I would imagine that's what they are tapping into. Economists love the old "ceretis paribus" phrase (all else being equal). Of course you would know that if you weren't a dirty progressive...

 

[TennTradition]

I don't see them as polling questions - they are asking about basic economic relationships; distilled from economic theory.

Psychometrics often look this way.

Perhaps I should say "polling people about their understanding of economics."

They are asking basic economic questions which have been wrapped up political issue wrapping paper. I'm not sure how you know in the end of the day the people they asked these questions too even bothered to look at the gift inside because they hated the wrapping paper so much. When the time comes to draw conclusions from your study, this has to come into your analysis. I haven't read the study, so maybe they did here, but I'm just saying I think I would jump off the roof if I had to do that.

 

[IPorange]

Economics situations are always a matter of scale. It's the big picture that really matters. An easy example of that is minimum wage. On a small scale of the lowest paid worker, it sounds great. The big picture is that it is ultimately bad for some, and eventually neutral for everyone else. It doesn't really help anybody for very long, and net-hurts the group that has some members who benefit from it.

 

[TennTradition]

I can see that. The underlying economic principle is that it leads to employment growth and I would imagine that's what they are tapping into. Economists love the old "ceretis paribus" phrase (all else being equal). Of course you would know that if you weren't a dirty progressive...

I am the ultimate chameleon. I have conservative friends who claim that I am one of the few liberals they can talk to about politics. I have liberal friends who say that I'm too conservative for their taste, but I show some semblance of reason. I think I must not really care about this stuff all that much.

 

[IPorange]

I am the ultimate chameleon. I have conservative friends who claim that I am one of the few liberals they can talk to about politics. I have liberal friends who say that I'm too conservative for their taste, but I show some semblance of reason. I think I must not really care about this stuff all that much.

I have the EXACT same thing with my friends. We should start a party. Our symbol could actually be a chameleon.

 

[paul1454]

I am the ultimate chameleon. I have conservative friends who claim that I am one of the few liberals they can talk to about politics. I have liberal friends who say that I'm too conservative for their taste, but I show some semblance of reason. I think I must not really care about this stuff all that much.

Or possibly that you tend to think rationally about the issues without letting political bias get in the way of your ideology.