Self-identified liberals & Democrats fail Econ101 questions

[Yootopia]

OK but you have to play that off against the whole "decrease in the wages of labour -> decrease in the amount of spending money available" effect.

Decreases in wages logically implies price deflation as well, so less money would be needed.

Dunno about that, we had pretty high inflation in the UK during the 1980s, when millions more people were made unemployed, and when there was no minimum wage. Just led to things being extremely bad for those out of work, rather than the Free Market Fairy stepping in and saving everyone by deflating prices.

[Blitzkrenia]

Let me ask you this: Do YOU get paid what you're worth?

Yes in a free-market Laisse-faire capitalism everyone is getting paid EXACTLY for what they are worth

Um, yes, in theory, under the assumption that there are no limitations. However, certain market barriers sometimes cannot be eliminated even with the most free system, which means this does not always hold true.

[Abury]

No, they get paid the minimum they can be paid.

and this because the great majority of people are good-at-nothing

only 18 % of the world have a IQ of 120 or superior and,frankly,I consider everyone with a IQ lower than 120 a fucking idiot



so if 82% of idiot people get paid the minimum to permict smarter person like me to flourish...well I consider this a natural form of Justice

[Unchecked Expansion]

No, they get paid the minimum they can be paid.

and this because the great majority of people are good-at-nothing

only 18 % of the world have a IQ of 120 or superior and,frankly,I consider everyone with a IQ lower than 120 a fucking idiot



so if 82% of idiot people get paid the minimum to permict smarter person like me to flourish...well I consider this a natural form of Justice

Assuming you aren't a poe, you realise IQ is relative? 100 is the average, not a fixed number.

[Hydesland]

No, they get paid the minimum they can be paid.

and this because the great majority of people are good-at-nothing

only 18 % of the world have a IQ of 120 or superior and,frankly,I consider everyone with a IQ lower than 120 a fucking idiot



so if 82% of idiot people get paid the minimum to permict smarter person like me to flourish...well I consider this a natural form of Justice

Please, you must be a troll. Otherwise, get an education.

[Panzerjaeger]

No, they get paid the minimum they can be paid.

and this because the great majority of people are good-at-nothing

only 18 % of the world have a IQ of 120 or superior and,frankly,I consider everyone with a IQ lower than 120 a fucking idiot



so if 82% of idiot people get paid the minimum to permict smarter person like me to flourish...well I consider this a natural form of Justice

Assuming you aren't a poe, you realise IQ is relative? 100 is the average, not a fixed number.

I'm hoping it is a Poe.

[Free Soviets]

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

Arguably false for a large portion of the population. Most income gains from growth have gone to a minority. And new consumer products are a mixed bag, especially included with other cultural changes that might have taken place over the past thirty years. (What would we do if most people said that the standard of living was lower? Might that be reason to reject our understanding of standard of living rather than their judgment? I thought economics believed in subjective value?)

in a slightly free-associating way, this reminded me of an old blog post by brad delong
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/08/h ... om-ar.html

[Meroivinge]

I agree. The economics courses in schools today are set up to glorify the free-market and its 'near-magical restoration abilities', not to provide objective criticism of its failures, short-comings, and its successes.

I have no word

The entire academia setting is screwed toward the hard-far-left

english classes,sociology,psychology,climatology etc etc are so far to the left and an odd with the real world outside their fucking ivory tower that basically they are more a train center for young Marxists than any else

AND ARE YOU SAYING ME WITH YOUR STRAIGHT FACE "ECON(one of the few BALANCED course) GLORIFY THE FREE-MARKET"

OHOHOH

sorry but this is fucking ridiculous

English classes are far to the left? I'm certain you could make that claim about sociology. But literature? The canon is dominated by dead white guys, most of whom had views modern readers might find repugnant. Shakespeare's The Tempest is pretty much a love ode to slavery. T.S. Eliot was a anti-semitic anglophile. Ezra Pound supported Mussolini. Milton was a religious loon. Alexander Pope was vicious, miserable, mean little troll. But the text speaks for itself, and all of these men contributed to Western Culture and are still being studies in lit classes.

[Bramborska]

I agree. The economics courses in schools today are set up to glorify the free-market and its 'near-magical restoration abilities', not to provide objective criticism of its failures, short-comings, and its successes.

I have no word

The entire academia setting is screwed toward the hard-far-left

english classes,sociology,psychology,climatology etc etc are so far to the left and an odd with the real world outside their fucking ivory tower that basically they are more a train center for young Marxists than any else

AND ARE YOU SAYING ME WITH YOUR STRAIGHT FACE "ECON(one of the few BALANCED course) GLORIFY THE FREE-MARKET"

OHOHOH

sorry but this is fucking ridiculous

English classes are far to the left? I'm certain you could make that claim about sociology. But literature? The canon is dominated by dead white guys, most of whom had views modern readers might find repugnant. Shakespeare's The Tempest is pretty much a love ode to slavery. T.S. Eliot was a anti-semitic anglophile. Ezra Pound supported Mussolini. Milton was a religious loon. Alexander Pope was vicious, miserable, mean little troll. But the text speaks for itself, and all of these men contributed to Western Culture and are still being studies in lit classes.

When was the last time you were in a literature class?

[Risottia]

Obviously, some questions are... Shall we say, debatable? Though many are not... How, exactly, can one screw up the monopoly question?

1 question not being debatable => 7 being debatable. Hence, biased poll.

Also, the monopoly question was about "the company with the largest share of the market" holding a monopoly. It is debatable, too, according to the operative definition of monopoly you choose. One could go for the strict definition of monopoly (that is, holding control over 100% of that sector), or less strict ones, mostly deriving from current use in the media and in the judiciary (overwhelming share of the market, let's say like Microsoft vs other end-user OS producers), or a socio-political definition (one holds a de-facto monopoly whenever its control over that market is so firm that it can successfully lobby for legislation in his own favour against any other competitor, or whenever he can bully competitors out of the market via buying them and closing them down, like let's say FIAT vs other Italian vehicle manufacturers).

Already the poll's ideas about what should be "Economy 101" are quite biased towards classical liberism; we don't see anything about labour policies (which are a part of economy, duh!), social aspects of economy (like, let's say, class mobility).

[Daistallia 2104]

This article is complete bullshit, for instance there are empirical economic and econometric works that show that the supposed correct answer to the minimum wage question is not always correct, the question on exploitation was obviously a subjective question, and the question on monopolies is ambiguous.

Indeed.

For "(t)hird World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited" to be true, one would onnly have to find 2 who are, and that ignores the completely subjective and undefined "exploited".

there is a reason why economics professors tend to be free-market laisse-faire fanatics

There is a reason why economics isn't really a science.

Indeed.

economics is a HARD SCIENCE unlikely climatology,sociology,afro and women studies and all other bullshits

This made me laugh out loud for real.
Do you even know what a hard science is?

I'm a fan of austrian economists because Austrian economists reject empirical, statistical methods

Aha - nope, you don't.

Errr I don't see how that would make it more scientific. There are, after all, no control experiments in economics.

Actually, there can be plenty of control experiments in economics (particularly behavioural economics), just as there can be control experiments in behavioural psychology as a whole. Furthermore, you can still empirically test most economic propositions through the use of econometric data.

Indeed, although, at least as I understand it, that a relatively recent development and still not a standard practiced across the board by the discipline.

If it was a Bell curve distributed somewhat to those who identified conservative, I'd not be too surprised though questioning some of the definitions of 'enlightened' answers, i.e., 6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree)... well somewhat it does by its very nature, although whether it's inherently 'free trade' as compared to a lack of full state-employment...

...however, for it to be linear along the lines of: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.

That's highly suspect, and one has to question the framing of the questions and their conclusions.

Indeed.

If climatology is a hard science why is there no consensus about anything (Global Warming etc etc) ?

May I kindly suggest that you go and find out what a hard science is before you embarass yourself further?

There is among climatologists, if not most scientists,

Indeed.

What Abury may be confused about is the cause for climate change, which is a stickier pot due to the high number of variables and inputs.

I have no word

The entire academia setting is screwed toward the hard-far-left

english classes,sociology,psychology,climatology etc etc are so far to the left and an odd with the real world outside their fucking ivory tower that basically they are more a train center for young Marxists than any else

AND ARE YOU SAYING ME WITH YOUR STRAIGHT FACE "ECON(one of the few BALANCED course) GLORIFY THE FREE-MARKET"

OHOHOH

sorry but this is fucking ridiculous

Excitable screaming and yelling, swearing, and demonizing your opponents are not debate winners.

[New Manvir]

No, they get paid the minimum they can be paid.

and this because the great majority of people are good-at-nothing

only 18 % of the world have a IQ of 120 or superior and,frankly,I consider everyone with a IQ lower than 120 a fucking idiot



so if 82% of idiot people get paid the minimum to permict smarter person like me to flourish...well I consider this a natural form of Justice

Can you please at least speak in coherent sentences? Or use proper spelling and grammar? It would probably help your whole "Libertarians are super smart and logical" idea if we didn't have to decipher half your posts with some sort of Rosetta stone.

[Person012345]

No, they get paid the minimum they can be paid.

and this because the great majority of people are good-at-nothing

only 18 % of the world have a IQ of 120 or superior and,frankly,I consider everyone with a IQ lower than 120 a fucking idiot



so if 82% of idiot people get paid the minimum to permict smarter person like me to flourish...well I consider this a natural form of Justice

I don't. Also, I think that would have a very negative effect on the economy.

[Phoeniae (Ancient)]

We always have to remember the self definition of liberal/conservative to be intended differently from no-north americans bloggers, for cohomprension, even if this may be obvious; and beyond the debate over the sensiblity of these definitions in general (personally, I'm substain their loosenig, when not their abolition).

However it seems, just from what the article says, self-defined liberals tended to answer whit polemical approach, exspressing the opinion of "how should be" rather than "how I know that it is". The matter redusing the expectation over the article.

[Daistallia 2104]

No, they get paid the minimum they can be paid.

and this because the great majority of people are good-at-nothing

only 18 % of the world have a IQ of 120 or superior and,frankly,I consider everyone with a IQ lower than 120 a fucking idiot



so if 82% of idiot people get paid the minimum to permict smarter person like me to flourish...well I consider this a natural form of Justice

All I can say is I'm very tempted here to make a comment that would break my Red Tag cherry.

[Hydesland]

Indeed, although, at least as I understand it, that a relatively recent development and still not a standard practiced across the board by the discipline.

Not really. The use of statistics has been used since the beginning of last century if not before. The use of more advanced statistical and econometric techniques have been common since at least the fifties and have been adopted by most fields of economics since the use of computers in universities and other places where research takes place, the only fields that don't really use econometrics is the economics of industrial organisation, behavioural and experimental economics and Austrian economics.

[Socialist Usonia]

There is a reason why economics isn't really a science.

economics is a HARD SCIENCE unlikely climatology,sociology,afro and women studies and all other bullshits

No, economics is a social "science" precisely like sociology, women's studies, etc. Climatology is very much a hard science, as is geology, physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Though as the discipline moves toward empirical methods, the validity of the claim that economics is a science may increase.

[Daistallia 2104]

The poll was designed to trip up liberals and democrats. It completely fails as a comparison between conservatives and liberals.

It still shows, however, that liberals and democrats are also likely to have their interpretations skewed by what they want to be true, just like everyone else.

Then the stupid M and W test was designed to trip up conservatives, libertarians and republicans, how 'bout that?

I don't know what you are talking about.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la- ... &cset=true
http://www.slate.com/id/2173965
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v10 ... n1979.html

[The Congregationists]

What this tells me is that conservative and right-libertarian thought is rooted in economic theory. Big, big surprise. That doesn't necessarily make them right, it means that classical economic dogma underpins their ideology. Were you to do a quiz on, say, sociology, you'd get entirely the opposite results.

[Caninope]

"7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree)." - Wut.

Of the EU countries, Germany has quite bad unemployment and zero minimum wage laws. Also, consider most of Africa. Now that's potentially more correlation than causation, but still.

http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/ ... gainst.htm

Ya, ya, ya it's the ebul Republican House of 1996, but still.

[Vittos Ordination]

OK but you have to play that off against the whole "decrease in the wages of labour -> decrease in the amount of spending money available" effect.

Decreases in wages logically implies price deflation as well, so less money would be needed.

Dunno about that, we had pretty high inflation in the UK during the 1980s, when millions more people were made unemployed, and when there was no minimum wage. Just led to things being extremely bad for those out of work, rather than the Free Market Fairy stepping in and saving everyone by deflating prices.

Just acknowledging that I read this, as there is little I can do to discuss it at this point.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

I'm a fan of austrian economists because Austrian economists reject empirical, statistical methods

Just wondering, but do you look for the same qualities when choosing your doctors?

[Vittos Ordination]

The poll was designed to trip up liberals and democrats. It completely fails as a comparison between conservatives and liberals.

It still shows, however, that liberals and democrats are also likely to have their interpretations skewed by what they want to be true, just like everyone else.

Then the stupid M and W test was designed to trip up conservatives, libertarians and republicans, how 'bout that?

I don't know what you are talking about.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la- ... &cset=true
http://www.slate.com/id/2173965
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v10 ... n1979.html

I don't see any reason to assume those were designed to trip up anyone.

Interpretation of the test may have been a little skewed in some circles, however.

In this case it was obvious from the get-go that the person performing the survey was wanting to show that most liberals/democrats didn't know basic economics. I don't doubt that liberals/democrats are lacking in basic economic understanding, but that is likely true of the population as a whole. By conducting it this way, the author leaves no opportunity to determine the economic literacy of liberals/democrats relatively.

That being the case, and with this being a rather lacking study in the first place, I don't see any use to this.

[Kamsaki]

so if 82% of idiot people get paid the minimum to permict smarter person like me to flourish...well I consider this a natural form of Justice

All I can say is I'm very tempted here to make a comment that would break my Red Tag cherry.

It's a shame NSG's rules are somewhat stricter than the law, since you'd have a great defense against any libel case brought against you for calling him, say, a "sociopathic fuckwit".

[Vittos Ordination]

I'm a fan of austrian economists because Austrian economists reject empirical, statistical methods

Just wondering, but do you look for the same qualities when choosing your doctors?

If the medical fields had performed as well as the economic fields through this century, we wouldn't have doctors.