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

#76
#76
An inherent problem with this discussion is the relative value people place on pure economic outcome versus limitation and regulation which thwarts it for some other purpose.

What I find disengenuous about the traditional Reagan view of economic growth is that a rising tide floats all boats. I don't thinkl there is a ton of empirical data to support that, and in fact plenty to support the opposite view, which is that the rising tide tends to make the yachts bigger while overwhelming and springing leaks in the dinghys.
 
#77
#77
truefan said:


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

no S---

i've taken many a high level economics course being an economics major and all. i've also taken multiple post graduate courses.
 
#78
#78
lawgator1 said:
An inherent problem with this discussion is the relative value people place on pure economic outcome versus limitation and regulation which thwarts it for some other purpose.

What I find disengenuous about the traditional Reagan view of economic growth is that a rising tide floats all boats. I don't thinkl there is a ton of empirical data to support that, and in fact plenty to support the opposite view, which is that the rising tide tends to make the yachts bigger while overwhelming and springing leaks in the dinghys.
Click to expand...

i'd argue there is at least 30 years of empiracal data to support that and a hell of a lot of recent data to support the idea that nations aren't better with a socialist lean.
 
#79
#79
lawgator1 said:
An inherent problem with this discussion is the relative value people place on pure economic outcome versus limitation and regulation which thwarts it for some other purpose.

No - the study doesn't purport to address those issues. It asks about basic established economic relationships. The worth or value of a particular economic policy is debatable. The study does not investigate that topic.

You are using a classic strawman argument along with ad hominem attacks.



What I find disengenuous about the traditional Reagan view of economic growth is that a rising tide floats all boats. I don't thinkl there is a ton of empirical data to support that, and in fact plenty to support the opposite view, which is that the rising tide tends to make the yachts bigger while overwhelming and springing leaks in the dinghys.
Click to expand...

The study asked nothing about Reaganomics; your interpretation of its effects not withstanding.
 
#80
#80
lawgator1 said:
An inherent problem with this discussion is the relative value people place on pure economic outcome versus limitation and regulation which thwarts it for some other purpose.

What I find disengenuous about the traditional Reagan view of economic growth is that a rising tide floats all boats. I don't thinkl there is a ton of empirical data to support that, and in fact plenty to support the opposite view, which is that the rising tide tends to make the yachts bigger while overwhelming and springing leaks in the dinghys.
Click to expand...

The study doesn't even approach that level of economics. It is asking about basic principles, that as far as I know aren't really debated. This is simple supply-and-demand type stuff. Not Reaganomics or even Obamanomics.
 
#81
#81
IPorange said:
The study doesn't even approach that level of economics. It is asking about basic principles, that as far as I know aren't really debated. This is simple supply-and-demand type stuff. Not Reaganomics or even Obamanomics.
Click to expand...


"Basic" in the sense that you agree with them and think they are so obviously correct as to not be debatable?

I think I will do the following survery.


1. Sarah Palin is not qualified to be President.

2. The Tea Parties include dangerous rhetoric prone to cause violence against black people.

3. Fox News is a propaganda machine.


If you disagree, I will label you as falling into the unenlightened category of current American politics.

And then I will divide up that group by their own self-described political preferences.

I will come to the conclusion that all conservative Republicans are unenlightened.

I will then give my study to be "peer reviewed" by the NAACP.

I will then include it in Mother Jones Magazine.

I will then find a liberal blogger to post a story about it and it will make its way onto this message board.

And all of you will uniformly deride it as intentionally misleading as a scientific survey, performed by people with an agenda, and judged by people with an agenda.

And I will agree with you because I am intenllectually honest, whereas you for whatever reason don't have the cajones to admit that this economics study is pure crap.
 
#82
#82
please show the questions you seem to think are related to reaganomics. this i'd love to hear.
 
#83
#83
droski said:
please show the questions you seem to think are related to reaganomics. this i'd love to hear.
Click to expand...


Actually, I brought him up only as the most relatable figure championing the trickle down or reduce-taxes-and-the-rich-will-use-their-extra-cash-to-hire-more-people theory.

Having said that, 8. Minimum wage laws raise unemployment, is probably not that far from his line of thinking, i.e. that making the wealthiest even wealthier will benefit everyone on down the line.

I am not, by the way, saying that is not true. To the contrary, I think there is a lot of merit to that in principle. But I think we've now built so many people into the middle of that process as pure transaction costs that whatever generally beneficent effect there might be it is dumbed down considerably by the end of the process.
 
#84
#84
So what you are saying is no peer reviewed studied can be considered valid because there is always some underlying attempt paint the specific group in question in a negative light? Are you saying this is always the case or just in this specific study because you don't believe this particular peer review group is being fair?

Your scenario about the NAACP and such is very weak.
 
#85
#85
lawgator1 said:
Having said that, 8. Minimum wage laws raise unemployment, is probably not that far from his line of thinking, i.e. that making the wealthiest even wealthier will benefit everyone on down the line.
Click to expand...

this has nothing to do with trickle down. it has to do with the fact that raising the minimum wage encourages mcdonalds et all to hire less people. you know because their costs go up and all. you know similar to how you buy less pottery and tranny porn when the prices of those things go up.
 
#86
#86
droski said:
this has nothing to do with trickle down. it has to do with the fact that raising the minimum wage encourages mcdonalds et all to hire less people. you know because their costs go up and all. you know similar to how you buy less pottery and tranny porn when the prices of those things go up.
Click to expand...


As an aside, the pottery thing I confess to.

But the tranny porn -- I have no idea where that came from.
 
#87
#87
lawgator1 said:
Actually, I brought him up only as the most relatable figure championing the trickle down or reduce-taxes-and-the-rich-will-use-their-extra-cash-to-hire-more-people theory.

Having said that, 8. Minimum wage laws raise unemployment, is probably not that far from his line of thinking, i.e. that making the wealthiest even wealthier will benefit everyone on down the line.

I am not, by the way, saying that is not true. To the contrary, I think there is a lot of merit to that in principle. But I think we've now built so many people into the middle of that process as pure transaction costs that whatever generally beneficent effect there might be it is dumbed down considerably by the end of the process.
Click to expand...

It's pretty simple, and even works just like your criticism of the wealthy works. If you make large pie slices, there are less slices to go around. That's true for the bottom (minimum wage) and the top (higher executive salaries). A question follows, though: who gets to decide how big the slices are, and who gets them? Should someone decide?

But the basic, BASIC economic principle, regarding wages and prices, is the same in both settings.
 
#90
#90
lawgator1 said:
"Basic" in the sense that you agree with them and think they are so obviously correct as to not be debatable?

I think I will do the following survery.


1. Sarah Palin is not qualified to be President.

2. The Tea Parties include dangerous rhetoric prone to cause violence against black people.

3. Fox News is a propaganda machine.


If you disagree, I will label you as falling into the unenlightened category of current American politics.

And then I will divide up that group by their own self-described political preferences.

I will come to the conclusion that all conservative Republicans are unenlightened.

I will then give my study to be "peer reviewed" by the NAACP.

I will then include it in Mother Jones Magazine.

I will then find a liberal blogger to post a story about it and it will make its way onto this message board.

And all of you will uniformly deride it as intentionally misleading as a scientific survey, performed by people with an agenda, and judged by people with an agenda.

And I will agree with you because I am intenllectually honest, whereas you for whatever reason don't have the cajones to admit that this economics study is pure crap.
Click to expand...
haha, excellent point
 
#92
#92
Cash Vallin said:
haha, excellent point
Click to expand...

So you are buying that this peer reviewed journal is biased?

Theres a huge difference between the scenario LG painted and in this instance, if you can't see that or at the very least admit it to yourself you are lost.
 
#93
#93
lawgator1 said:
"Basic" in the sense that you agree with them and think they are so obviously correct as to not be debatable?

I think I will do the following survery.


1. Sarah Palin is not qualified to be President.

many agree but not a general principle established by decades of research

2. The Tea Parties include dangerous rhetoric prone to cause violence against black people.

not a general principle and not established by decades of research

3. Fox News is a propaganda machine.

see #2


If you disagree, I will label you as falling into the unenlightened category of current American politics.

And then I will divide up that group by their own self-described political preferences.

I will come to the conclusion that all conservative Republicans are unenlightened.

you haven't established data to show the relationship - where's the empirical findings?

I will then give my study to be "peer reviewed" by the NAACP.

not even remotely what the peer review process was for the study in question

I will then include it in Mother Jones Magazine.

not remotely equivalent as a publication - one is an academic journal with peer review the other is a serial pub with no claim to academic research

I will then find a liberal blogger to post a story about it and it will make its way onto this message board.

And all of you will uniformly deride it as intentionally misleading as a scientific survey, performed by people with an agenda, and judged by people with an agenda.

it fails on numerous accounts to qualify as 1) representative of the state of agreement in the field, 2) following scientific procedure and 3) publication in peer-reviewed outlets.

And I will agree with you because I am intenllectually honest, whereas you for whatever reason don't have the cajones to admit that this economics study is pure crap.
Click to expand...

Really, the intellectual honesty card again? If you think your example is anything like the study at question you are either not intellectual or not honest.
 
#94
#94
IPorange said:
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?
Click to expand...

I do sometimes, but it was a lot worse in college when I was in student government. I don't talk a lot about any particular party I identify with these days... :)
 
#95
#95
volinbham said:
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.
Click to expand...

Or because thy know they aren't being "graded", they choose to answer "incorrectly" because they really believe that "must be right."

I only say this because I'm pretty sure that I know some people that would answer in a way that might contradict their answers if the questions were asked in a different way...out of principle.
 
Last edited:
#96
#96
IPorange said:
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.
Click to expand...

hmmm...not sure about this statement. Not to get too off topic, but what is the scientific alternative to evolution?
 
#97
#97
rjd970 said:
hmmm...not sure about this statement. Not to get too off topic, but what is the scientific alternative to evolution?
Click to expand...

Hell if I know. I was just saying that someone who studies the market is apt to have a market-centric view. I suppose it wasn't a perfect analogy.
 
#98
#98
IPorange said:
Hell if I know. I was just saying that someone who studies the market is apt to have a market-centric view. I suppose it wasn't a perfect analogy.
Click to expand...

Haha...I know, just trying to understand, that's all. :hi:
 
#99
#99
KB5252 said:
So you are buying that this peer reviewed journal is biased?

Theres a huge difference between the scenario LG painted and in this instance, if you can't see that or at the very least admit it to yourself you are lost.
Click to expand...
it's the same skepticism that many on here show with global warming research... no difference.
 
#100
#100
rjd970 said:
hmmm...not sure about this statement. Not to get too off topic, but what is the scientific alternative to evolution?
Click to expand...

IPorange said:
Hell if I know. I was just saying that someone who studies the market is apt to have a market-centric view. I suppose it wasn't a perfect analogy.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think economics as a discipline is much broader than what we typically discuss (e.g. markets/business/commerce). At it's core, it is about understanding human decision making with a bias towards "rational or logical" mechanisms driving such behavior.

We have an economist who studies "happiness". Freakenomics is a good example - application of economic decision making theories across all manner of human decisions.

That said, I can't say if most economists are classical liberals (e.g. free traders). Hell, look at Bam's uncle P. Krugman - hard to say he's from classic liberalism.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top