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

[IPorange]

TT, do you ever have people try to pressure or guilt you into "picking a side?" As if all of one's beliefs have to fall on one side of the fence or the other, and the world was so black and white? And that one of the two big schools of thought actually had all the answers?

 

[volinbham]

Here's how I see the study. It is equivalent to an intro-level econ exam. It attempts to see if people understand basic economic relationships.

You cannot separate out politically sensitive content anymore than you could from a history exam (e.g. asking about some effect of slavery).

The study of economics (like any other discipline) is quite complex but basic relationships have been agreed upon and can be boiled down to pretty simple "universals". As any discipline based specialist knows, those universals always have exceptions.

All this study does is see if one group of people understand some basic econ principles better than others - like I said, it's an entry-level econ test.

Seeing political content and answering wrong doesn't change the fact that the person missed the question - doesn't understand the basic econ principle.

 

[lawgator1]

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.

Your wish, sir, is my command.


Question 1: Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable.

My response: What restrictions? By whom? And imposed in what manner? And on what types of development?

Do you mean restrictions in the sense of higher costs for building? Compliance with local regulation? Or, do you mean increased green spaces and less availability of property for development?

If you simply mean "Does less housing make whatever is left available more expensive," the answer is duh, of course it does.

But as poorly worded and undefined as this is, the question is the equivalent of pointless gurgling by a 2 week old.


Question 2: Mandatory licensing of progressional services increases the prices of those services.

Ok, sure. But given that licensing restrictions keep me from performing brain surgery in my kitchen, I'm prety much okay with licensing in that respect. Hope you are, too.

What? No trade-off to the increased price? No question of whether, in the respondent's view, the increase in price is worth some verificvation that the person holding himself out to be a dentist is, in factm a dentist?



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

I just love this question. Whose? Mine? I mean sure, mine is. Oh, wait, you mean the "average person's"? Well, that depends on what you mean by "standard of living."

Does that mean pure income? Disposable income? Life expectancy? Some unquantifiable measure of happiness or contenment? Or is it something even less measurable than that -- maybe access to education, opportunity to invest or build a business.

The question is stupid.



4. Rent control leads to housing shortages.

What on Earth do you mean by "housing shortages"? If its as simple as less housing, okay, I guess you could argue that its a disincentive to build or redeem property as rental.

But "shortages" to me implies more than that, i.e. that the lowered supply is meaningful. For example, given the economy here in Orlando, there is very little building going on. While it is true that the number of available units is going down, down, down, I don't know a sould who would consider, in looking at the empty condos downtown, that there is a "shortage" of housing available in this area.

Not a stupid question, relative to the others, but still too vauge to be of much use.


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


Not technically, and not legally. By definition a monopoly is one. But, the issue is much more nuanced than that because certainly a company can have such a large market share that, despite the presence of tiny competitors, the big dog gains all of the benefits to itself of what is, effectively, a monopoly.

And to make matters worse, that's not always a bad thing. But the question is loaded. It is designed to get an affirmative answer and then of course deem the respondent a dolt.



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

As pointed out above by someone else, the use of the word "exploited" is just so perjorative, and vague, that tendering this question as a valid measure of anything is just absurd.




7. Free trade leads to unemployment.


Oh. My. God. Where do I begin?

First, what is meant by "free trade"? Does that mean lowered tarrifs or quotas? Demands for reciprocation?

And, second, unemployment for who? The US? Or China?

Third, unemployment in what sector? Manufacturing? Or services?

Last, if I remember correctly when studying such matters in high school and college, the enormity of disagreement by experts on the effects of protectionism and free trade, varying between industries and economic conditions, is roughly the size of a billion universes.

I mean, come on. How on Earth can anyone say that how someone casually responds to that proposition can be declared "unenlightened" (whnatever the f that means)?



8. Minimum wage laws raise unemployment.

I suppose that depends on when you measure it and the sector you examine. Arguably, a study of a particular sector six months after a raise in the minimum wage will reflect a decline in demand for employees. At the same time, a study of that same secotr 2 years down the road may show higher demand than otherwise would have been expected.

And, that doesn't even account for the effect of the raise in minimum wage on other sectors of the economy, which might be more or less than the offset in the affected industries, depending on a ton of variables.




The funny thing is, if you read the article, they say they excluded 8 others because they were too vague. One wonders how loaded or poorly worded or meandering those questions were such that the authors decided to ignore the results as to them.

Of course, it may simply be that they didn't like the results of their study in terms of those questions. The responses to those questions may have defeated their purpose in doing this, which was to criticize the left as uneducated or stupid when it came to economics. My money is on that.

 

[paul1454]

Here's how I see the study. It is equivalent to an intro-level econ exam. It attempts to see if people understand basic economic relationships.

You cannot separate out politically sensitive content anymore than you could from a history exam (e.g. asking about some effect of slavery).

The study of economics (like any other discipline) is quite complex but basic relationships have been agreed upon and can be boiled down to pretty simple "universals". As any discipline based specialist knows, those universals always have exceptions.

All this study does is see if one group of people understand some basic econ principles better than others - like I said, it's an entry-level econ test.

It really is. And that is essentially what they say in their qualification of the study's findings.

Caveat 3 of 4: Even if one accepts that our handling of each of the eight economic questions tracks economic enlightenment, the set represents a baseline rather than the heights of economic wisdom. In other words, the most economically enlightened mind would score no better than a solidly sensible mind on the eight questions, as they would both ace the 8-question exam. Yet presumably almost all of the most economically enlightened minds in the United States have all gone to college. The reader should keep in mind that when we speak of “economic enlightenment,” we mean it in relation to performance on a very basic test, not an average over the entire range of economic enlightenment.

 

[IPorange]

TY, LG. Thanks for being a sport.

 

[IPorange]

OK, LG. It is now clear. You have an issue with the implications to the answers, not the answers themselves.

Have you considered denying climate change? Because you are doing essentially the same thing here in my opinion.

All because there is a negative economic repercussion on something doesn't mean it is "bad" or we shouldn't do it. The study was measuring economic understanding, nothing more. All because more green spaces decrease the availability of space for housing, and thus increase housing prices, doesn't mean it isn't worth it or we should all live on top of one another in cheap slums.

 

[volinbham]

Your wish, sir, is my command.



The funny thing is, if you read the article, they say they excluded 8 others because they were too vague. One wonders how loaded or poorly worded or meandering those questions were such that the authors decided to ignore the results as to them.

Of course, it may simply be that they didn't like the results of their study in terms of those questions. The responses to those questions may have defeated their purpose in doing this, which was to criticize the left as uneducated or stupid when it came to economics. My money is on that.

Again, the inclusion or exclusion would be subject to blind peer review. Questions thrown out without objective merit will not pass review muster.

You may not like the findings or find the study flawed but blind-peer review generally weeds out the problems you suggest.

As stated earlier - these are similar to questions that would be on a sophomore level economics exam. They work fine for that purpose, I don't see why they would not work fine in this case.

For example, the monopoly question is clearly a "false". Having the largest market share does not equal the absence of competitors. There is no political bias or loading in this question. Surely you passed enough T/F quizzes/exams to know how to answer T/F questions.

 

[volinbham]

OK, LG. It is now clear. You have an issue with the implications to the answers, not the answers themselves.

Have you considered denying climate change? Because you are doing essentially the same thing here in my opinion.

All because there is a negative economic repercussion on something doesn't mean it is "bad" or we shouldn't do it. The study was measuring economic understanding, nothing more. All because more green spaces decrease the availability of space for housing, and thus increase housing prices, doesn't mean it isn't worth it or we should all live on top of one another in cheap slums.

Precisely - it wasn't asking about anything other than the basic economic relationship.

 

[lawgator1]

OK, LG. It is now clear. You have an issue with the implications to the answers, not the answers themselves.

Have you considered denying climate change? Because you are doing essentially the same thing here in my opinion.

All because there is a negative economic repercussion on something doesn't mean it is "bad" or we shouldn't do it. The study was measuring economic understanding, nothing more. All because more green spaces decrease the availability of space for housing, and thus increase housing prices, doesn't mean it isn't worth it or we should all live on top of one another in cheap slums.

I disagree with your contention that the questions weren't qualitatively defective. The authors had an agenda and the questions (really they are assertions to which you indicate some level fo agreement) reflect that.

Additionally, they went way past basic economics questions about supply and demand and instead assumed a lot about how people were defining the terms of the statements.

I think it rather obvious that the authors intended for that confusion to be so.

Again, the inclusion or exclusion would be subject to blind peer review. Questions thrown out without objective merit will not pass review muster.

You may not like the findings or find the study flawed but blind-peer review generally weeds out the problems you suggest.

As stated earlier - these are similar to questions that would be on a sophomore level economics exam. They work fine for that purpose, I don't see why they would not work fine in this case.

For example, the monopoly question is clearly a "false". Having the largest market share does not equal the absence of competitors. There is no political bias or loading in this question. Surely you passed enough T/F quizzes/exams to know how to answer T/F questions.

Having been in academia for a period of time, and being quite familiar with the process, it is affirmatively misleading to call something "peer reviewed" in order to give it an impramatur of being worthy, objective, scientific, reliable, and valid.

You seem to think that "peer review" is intended to reflect that like-minded people endorse it. Which is not what peer review is about.

At least, that is not what it is suspposed to be about.

 

[BigPapaVol]

LGs long rationalization acts as though the questions were more than simple yes or no questions to test very basic concepts.

1. ANY restriction increases housing prices. ANY at all. You know diddly about the business. Stay out of it. You're wrong. There is no rationalization for the wrong answer here.

2. The market keeps clowns like you from performing brain surgery, not a license. Licenses absolutely and unquivocally drive up price. Forget all the rationalizations. The answer to the question is yes - all the time, every time.

3. Mr. Joe Sixpack and I give one another late night mutual handjobs is now using Joe Six to try and run around the fact that the standard of living in America has drastically changed over time.

4. I don't know how this one is difficult, unless you're trying to support some silly view that those getting it wrong were somehow smarter than the question. In that case, you have to make crap up. Somebody is probably a racist.

5. It wasn't a nuanced question. It was a very specific question to which only one correct answer exists. If people are too stupid to give the correct answer, you shouldn't be defending them.

6. Silly question with some telling answers I'm sure.

7. Economists know exactly what free trade means. It's not a perfect question and the answers generally meaningless, but haggling over what it means is garbage.

8. Your answer included some silly comment about who knows what might happen down the road in that industry? Nothing more need need be said. You're in the "you caint tell me for absolute fact that our coach won't win ever game he coaches at UT" crowd.

 

[droski]

anyone arguing the standard of living today is worse than 30 years ago has their head in the sand.

 

[volinbham]

Having been in academia for a period of time, and being quite familiar with the process, it is affirmatively misleading to call something "peer reviewed" in order to give it an impramatur of being worthy, objective, scientific, reliable, and valid.

You seem to think that "peer review" is intended to reflect that like-minded people endorse it. Which is not what peer review is about.

Huh?

At least, that is not what it is suspposed to be about.

Peer review is not about "like-minded" or an endorsement of a particular theory, etc.

It is a technique to ensure the academic and methodological soundness of a piece of research.

As such, the fact that this piece passed that hurdle, it does have a stamp of approval that the study was conducted within the academic and methodological standards of the discipline.

The objections you bring about the method (omitting questions because they don't like the findings; shoddy measurement instruments, etc.) are precisely what peer-review is designed to prevent.

 

[paul1454]

I disagree with your contention that the questions weren't qualitatively defective. The authors had an agenda and the questions (really they are assertions to which you indicate some level fo agreement) reflect that.

Additionally, they went way past basic economics questions about supply and demand and instead assumed a lot about how people were defining the terms of the statements.

I think it rather obvious that the authors intended for that confusion to be so.

To the extent you believe there is political bias inherent in these questions, I would surmise that the authors did not intend it that way at all. For someone with an economics background, it is easy to separate the underlying economics from political issues. I look at these questions as merely recitations of basic economic principles and not as politically charged statements. That being said, maybe my views do not represent the general public. I just don't know.

 

[paul1454]

LGs long rationalization acts as though the questions were more than simple yes or no questions to test very basic concepts.

1. ANY restriction increases housing prices. ANY at all. You know diddly about the business. Stay out of it. You're wrong. There is no rationalization for the wrong answer here.

2. The market keeps clowns like you from performing brain surgery, not a license. Licenses absolutely and unquivocally drive up price. Forget all the rationalizations. The answer to the question is yes - all the time, every time.

3. Mr. Joe Sixpack and I give one another late night mutual handjobs is now using Joe Six to try and run around the fact that the standard of living in America has drastically changed over time.

4. I don't know how this one is difficult, unless you're trying to support some silly view that those getting it wrong were somehow smarter than the question. In that case, you have to make crap up. Somebody is probably a racist.

5. It wasn't a nuanced question. It was a very specific question to which only one correct answer exists. If people are too stupid to give the correct answer, you shouldn't be defending them.

6. Silly question with some telling answers I'm sure.

7. Economists know exactly what free trade means. It's not a perfect question and the answers generally meaningless, but haggling over what it means is garbage.

8. Your answer included some silly comment about who knows what might happen down the road in that industry? Nothing more need need be said. You're in the "you caint tell me for absolute fact that our coach won't win ever game he coaches at UT" crowd.

Agree. I do not think anyone who has taken any sort of college-level introductory microeconomics course would have a problem knowing the answers to these questions (assuming they paid relatively close attention). That is what the survey was trying to examine, the understanding of basic economic concepts. It isn't like the questions were based on theories that are subject to disagreement between academics. The underlying economic theories upon which these questions are based are not even questioned today.

 

[volinbham]

Agree. I do not think anyone who has taken any sort of college-level introductory microeconomics course would have a problem knowing the answers to these questions (assuming they paid relatively close attention). That is what the survey was trying to examine, the understanding of basic economic concepts. It isn't like the questions were based on theories that are subject to disagreement between academics. The underlying economic theories upon which these questions are based are not even questioned today.

Precisely the point. I'm guessing there are topical areas where those that self-identify as progressives will outscore those that self-identify as conservatives.

It's not how much you know or how smart you are, it's what you know.

 

[IPorange]

I don't understand why LG is seeing it as a knock against his views.

# 2 for instance. Of course licensing increases cost. Does that mean we should do away with medical licenses and the like? No. But we should be aware of what the effect is when we decide that someone should need a license to do indoor plumbing or something, and weigh the cost in the decision.

The questions and their answers aren't partisan. Don't be so defensive. The world is more complex than just economics (which is saying something, because that is pretty complicated in itself) and no one here is saying any different. We need to weigh all the aspects of policy decisions, even the negative, which is often economic in nature when you are talking about intervening in a free market-- there are always winners and losers, and when another variable like government comes in, those lines move creating new losers and new winners.

You have to look at it all.

 

[lawgator1]

Peer review is not about "like-minded" or an endorsement of a particular theory, etc.

It is a technique to ensure the academic and methodological soundness of a piece of research.

As such, the fact that this piece passed that hurdle, it does have a stamp of approval that the study was conducted within the academic and methodological standards of the discipline.

The objections you bring about the method (omitting questions because they don't like the findings; shoddy measurement instruments, etc.) are precisely what peer-review is designed to prevent.

To the extent you believe there is political bias inherent in these questions, I would surmise that the authors did not intend it that way at all. For someone with an economics background, it is easy to separate the underlying economics from political issues. I look at these questions as merely recitations of basic economic principles and not as politically charged statements. That being said, maybe my views do not represent the general public. I just don't know.

If the people doing the study have an agenda, and if the people doing the peer review share the same agenda, you should be suspect of the study and the conclusions drawn from it.

I am stunned that people on here are defending the value of the study statements as rudimentary and unequivocal in their characterizations of either the facts assumed in the statement, or the economic conclusion to be drawn from them.

 

[truefan]

i have yet to have met someone who is a obama supporter who understands economics. i have met liberals who are smart about that, but they aren't obama supporters.

Easily one of the dumber statements ever posted on VolNation. You obviously don't know too many people. I am certain you think I am a liberal and I forgot more about economics than you will ever know. That being said, I don't necessarily support Obama's economic policies. Make no mistake about it, there are plenty of Obama supporters who are much smarter than you.

 

[volinbham]

If the people doing the study have an agenda, and if the people doing the peer review share the same agenda, you should be suspect of the study and the conclusions drawn from it.

How on earth do you presume the reviewers have the same agenda as the authors?

As a regular peer-reviewer I know this is not how it works. A journal that continually eschews true peer-review for agenda driven research and as a result publishes shoddy research will not last.

You are basically questioning all scientific peer-reviewed research with this underlying assertion.

I am stunned that people on here are defending the value of the study statements as rudimentary and unequivocal in their characterizations of either the facts assumed in the statement, or the economic conclusion to be drawn from them.

I'm stunned you are so defensive and knee-jerk in your reaction to this study.

 

[volinbham]

Easily one of the dumber statements ever posted on VolNation. You obviously don't know too many people. I am certain you think I am a liberal and I forgot more about economics than you will ever know. That being said, I don't necessarily support Obama's economic policies. Make no mistake about it, there are plenty of Obama supporters who are much smarter than you.

doesn't this support his point? you have a wealth of econ knowledge, supported Obama in the election yet question his economic policies.

 

[droski]

Easily one of the dumber statements ever posted on VolNation. You obviously don't know too many people. I am certain you think I am a liberal and I forgot more about economics than you will ever know. That being said, I don't necessarily support Obama's economic policies. Make no mistake about it, there are plenty of Obama supporters who are much smarter than you.

you don't understand economics, so i'm not sure why you think this statement is so dumb. and there are plenty of brilliant people who don't have a lick of common sense, so i'm not sure how your last statement is relavant.

 

[truefan]

you don't understand economics, so i'm not sure why you think this statement is so dumb.

Like I said, I forgot more about it than you will ever know. I have a sheepskin that says I know quite a lot about it. I have a transcript that indicates I know quite a lot about it. Most importantly, I have a number of bank accounts that would validate my academic recored

 

[droski]

right because being a paper pusher and a back office worker gave you direct insight into our financial markets right? i'll put my economic knowledge against anyone.

 

[truefan]

right because being a paper pusher and a back office worker gave you direct insight into our financial markets right? i'll put my economic knowledge against anyone.

Why do you keep saying this? What is a back office worker?

I spent 17 years in senior managment in the automotive industry and at GE.

I am sure you have a decent amount of knowledge concerning macroeconomics. Anyone that can make the statement you did though, doesn't have a clue.

 

[truefan]

right because being a paper pusher and a back office worker gave you direct insight into our financial markets right? i'll put my economic knowledge against anyone.

There is a lot more to ecomomics than the financial markets themselves. A lot more. Economics is a science