Slashdot Mirror
Scott Adams's Political Survey of Economists
Buffaloaf writes "Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, wanted to have unbiased information about which presidential candidate would be better for the economy, so he financed his own survey of 500 economists. He gives a bit more detail about the results in a CNN editorial, along with disclosure of his own biases and guesses as to the biases of the economists who responded."
That has to be one of the most thoroughly explained and analyzed surveys I've seen in a long time. The fact that he analyzed the leanings of the respondents and took that into account was really well done.
Now, can we also ask them who is really responsible for the current bank crisis (whether profit hungry execs, slimy people luring people into bad mortgages, people flipping houses and then wanting a bailout when burned, government policy...)?
I RTFA since the summary is not very good, but I don't see any conclusive results as to who would be better with the imbalanced sample pool. It is very difficult to predict how the candidates will act once in power. I didn't expect that Bush would ignore the Constitution as bad as he did once he got in power, so we are still open to surprises for either candidate.
there's the catch: the majority of economists are Democrats right now.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
My initial reaction was: There's far more Democratic economists than Republican ones. Perhaps their Democratic bias is because of their evaluation of who's better for the economy, and not the other way around?
I think probably the easiest way to prove this would be to show not just independents, but those who have switched from Republican to Democrat, or vice versa. Someone who's been Democratic for 50 years isn't likely to change their mind, and that could influence the economic evaluation.
However, someone who tends to think independently, even if they actually register with one party or another -- that is, someone who was recently the other party -- might provide a better indicator.
Then again, it's still impossible to tell. Maybe, long-term, Democrats have been better for the economy, and thus, economists tend to be long-time Democrats?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
That's a surprise. Maybe enomomists make less money than I thought.
or economists have the necessary education to see the big picture and vote for policies that increase the health of the entire economy rather then fatten their personal wallets in the short term.
Enlightened self interest can be a wonderful thing.
Hikery.net - The best hiking site ever. Made by yours truly.
I think the punchline is that the media and the researchers are so compromised that coming to a relatively uncorrupted conclusion now requires significant time and deep pockets.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Not just forthcoming, but he justifies them nicely.
Remember, kids: "The Dilbert Principle" can be both fun and scarily accurate.
Misery loves company. Online misery loves unsuspecting random strangers.
That was interesting. I wonder if the very profession of Economist presumes a liberal bias. After all, if your ideals about the market are that free trade is good, controls are bad, and that manipulating and putting controls on the market will be harmful, what's the point in becoming an economist in the first place?
I heard a commercial on the radio once from the national association of podiatrists... they said that you should get your feet checked by a professional twice a year. They said that with a straight face. Feet are what they deal with, and it probably seems so important to them to keep your 'feet health' a priority. Similarly, economists probably have to believe that more is going on in the market than Adam Smith's invisible hand, if only to justify their own existence.
Well, we turn to cartoonists for actual unbiased information when the press falls down on its job to do the same. This is the same reason that the most trusted face in news these days belongs to a comedian.
What makes me more confident in this than anything I might see on CNN is that a) he plainly states his personal bias and b) he shows his work. Neither happens in the mainstream media.
You get much better information from someone you know is biased than when their bias is hidden, even if your own biases don't match.
The cake is a pie
The results demonstrate that democratic economists lean left and republicans lean right. Economics ought to be unbaised. The fact that it is baised indicatse that economists can't be trusted to understand economic issues objectively.
Both wish for more government manipulation of the economy. Obama would like absolute government control of services arbitrarily deemed as necessary (in order to buy votes). McCain, under the guise of "free market", offers false choices under a government-controlled system. McCain wants you to believe that you can have the benefits of a free market through government regulation - that, somehow, socialism with (forced) choices will not fail. All they're saying is, "pick your poison - and there's no option not to be poisoned."
All you have left is to determine which system will lead to a faster or slower death, and decide which death is more preferable.
One major misconception here is that "economists" necessarily have a useful opinion on "the economy". (Let alone on candidates' positions thereupon.) It's like asking a panel of computer scientists about what relational database to use.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
His CNN writeup was an excuse to repeat three times that he would have his taxes raised by Obama.
Of course, neither Obama nor McCain can raise taxes. That's a congressional power, not an executive power. Frankly, I'm hoping that someone will confront both candidates about why they believe that as president, they will have powers that the constitution clearly places with the congress. Obama's a law professor, who should sure as hell know this.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I think it's really cool that Scott Adams paid for this survey. And I was impressed by his analysis of the results. But I am not sure how much value there is in the result.
Democrat economists favored Obama (88%!). Republican economists favored McCain (80%!). Independents (who, as Scott Adams pointed out, are mostly in academia) favored Obama (just barely: 46% Obama to 39% McCain). Not really earthshaking results nor unexpected. Maybe he should ask for his money back.
Really, the biggest surprise to me is how solidly the recommendations aligned with the political party of the recommending economist. It makes me wonder whether economics is really that subjective, or whether ideology is trumping objectivity here.
I was amused that Scott Adams described himself as "Libertarian, minus the crazy stuff". I could say the same. My own recommendation: vote for gridlock. Since Congress is in the hands of the Democrats, vote for the Republican candidate, just to put some quicksand under the wheels of big government.
My favorite quote:
Heh. Scott Adams is a comedic genius. Actually, I think we can shorten that to: Scott Adams is a genius.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Another way of looking at it would be: does it surprise anyone that many Republican economists would not want to respond to a survey if the facts don't support their political affiliations?
People don't like to put that kind of cognitive dissonance down on paper even though many people hold beliefs in their heads that don't connect with facts.
Is it perhaps possible that instead of someone's political leanings influencing their career choices, their career choices and accumulated knowledge have influenced their political leanings?
So I assume then you want Fox News and "Bill O'Reily (R)" to start doing the same so he also can be freed from the transparent lie that he is objective?
I would agree with you in a general sense -- except that there is such a moral hazard problem with golden parachuting and other moral hazards (see Fannie and Freddie) that any observation of CEO responses is rampant with game theoretic problems.
Simply put, academics are paid to know about the economy. For doctorate level academics, it's not about their own personal stake -- their stake is in being as accurate as possible and knowing as much as they can.
For whatever reason, apparently "economist" is a field that attracts liberals.
Maybe that's why republicans think you can cut taxes and increase spending and everything will work out okay.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
"Asking criminals for legal advice"? Oh, come on now!
I think it's important to remember a few things in relation to CEOs vs. Economists. Firstly, Economists are a bit like sportscasters: they can analyze trends and history, speculate and theorize, and give you reports and opinions. But in the end, their opinion doesn't really account for much. As such, there really isn't much accountability. CEOs, on the other hand, are more like coaches. They're a lot more in the trenches and actually make the decisions that carry significant consequences, good or bad. And while their answers will certainly be biased in the direction of their self interests, it's more likely that their self interest coincides with yours/ours.
I seem to remember some pithy quote about academia and "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." While the characterization is not universal, there's a nugget of truth there: most CEOs are there because they're genuinely good at what they do.
Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
The Scott Adams commentary contained this provocative remark:
Some of you will wonder how reliable a bunch of academics are when it comes to answering real life questions about the economy. You might prefer to know what CEOs think. But remember that CEOs are paid to be advocates for their stockholders, not advocates for voters. Asking CEOs what should be done about the economy is like asking criminals for legal advice.
Presumably criminals stand to benefit by giving others bad legal advice, and as criminals they could not be trusted to forgo personal gain for the principle of honesty. Likewise, CEOs stand to benefit by harming the economy and could not be trusted to forgo personal gain for the sake of improving the economic welfare of the nation.
Do CEOs benefit from a bad economy? "Yay! business is looking up because the economy is failing!". It is a more daft than deft analogy.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
It's like asking a panel of computer scientists about what relational database to use.
No, it's like asking a panel of computer scientists about what relational database to use versus asking a room full of business majors what relational database to use. Yeah, there will be disagreements, conflicting advice, and no clear consensus. But I'd still rather get an opinion from people who make thier living studying the subject than from random talking heads that the news corps shovel at us everyday.
From TFA:
Man, that's sad. He's making more than 200K (must be, or the O-man's plan has him in line for a tax cut), and *that's* his whole basis for voting? No cocern for society as a whole huh? Just your own personal pocketbook. I guess in that case the %98 of the rest of us should blindly vote Democratic, as we'll get a tax cut.
Let's not even mention the fact that he's not actually going to *raise* taxes on the rich, so much as rescind the huge "temporary" emergency tax cut Bush pushed through in his first term as an "economic stimulus package". That economic experiment sure worked well, didn't it?
The results demonstrate that democratic economists lean left and republicans lean right. Economics ought to be unbaised. The fact that it is baised indicatse that economists can't be trusted to understand economic issues objectively.
It says nothing of the sort. You assume that being "liberal" makes you see economics in a certain way. There's also the possibility that through a study of economics, you come to be a Democrat or Republican.
The big question is, what is meant by "the economy"? Are we talking pure growth in GDP, or an equitable distribution of wealth, as well?
The question is, if there's a disagreement in science (like, say, about how life on Earth started), should we look at intelligent design "scientists" and evolutionary biologists and say, "Wow, there's a disagreement about the origin of life! Therefore, scientists cannot be trusted to understand the issue objectively!" Umm.... what a scary world that would be.
88% of Democratic economists think Obama would be best, while 80% of Republican economists pick McCain
More likely Economists deal mostly in the realms of academia which contain a good percentage more liberals than conservatives, so the likelihood of being conservative and wanting to work with people who don't share your beliefs would seem to be fairly low.
Also one might conjecture that Conservatives just want to learn economic so they can make money, not just watch other people do it, haha. /stereotype
But they don't... only GOP politicians who don't have to stick around to clean up the mess do.
It's always the short term gain to buy the votes, and let the next guy worry about it in the future. It's this way with both democrats and republicans, by the way, when they own both the executive and legislature; the surprising bit is how much worse the republicans were when they were given the chance.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I enjoy the democrats' definitions of "tax cutting," when it means giving money to people who don't pay any taxes at all. It's also a bit astonishing how Obama is saying he's going to cut taxes and push for some sort of socialized health care. Yeah, let's put the burden on the most productive members of society.
Neither candidate has uttered the words that would probably woo over a good portion of people - "cut the budget."
I didn't know the USA was a dictatorship. I thought we had a legislative branch which actually created legislation before sending it to the executive to sign. You might want to research who controlled Congress under various presidents before making your conclusions.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
The results demonstrate that democratic economists lean left and republicans lean right.
That's actually not what it says. It says that among economists, those who believe Democrats are more likely to be good for the economy are likely to belong to that party and vote for that party's candidate, and those who believe Republicans are more likely to be good for the economy are likely to belong to that party and vote for that party's candidate. That's pretty rational behavior.
It also tells us a significant but not overwhelming majority believe Democrats are more likely to be good.
There is no real information about how biased the thinking process that helped them arrive at these conclusions was.
Tweet, tweet.
CEOs are hired for who they know, not what they know. Their contacts lead to favourable contracts and favours from politicians. In other words, they are the private sector version of politicians. These are frat people and as long as their staff can keep them out of making stupid decisions, they are worth it to the stockholders.
It's the exceptional CEO that knows about stuff as well as knowing about people.
> So I assume then you want Fox News and "Bill O'Reily (R)" to start doing the same...
O'Reilly isn't a news guy, he is up front about being on the opinion side of the line. And I really wouldn't want him with an R after his name anyway, he is more of a P for populist, but more than anything he is a blowhard self promoter.
But on your larger point, yea Fox is guilty of having their entire primetime lineup all partisan talking heads. Just like CNN. The difference is Fox doesn't demand their hosts hide their biases while over at CNN their hosts are equally biased but deny it with every fiber of their beings. As for MSNBC, they still pay lip service to denying their bias but everybody else just accepts them as the Kos/DU network now. They are really close to coming out now, this election cycle might just do it, and I'll be happy when it happens.
And it isn't just the big money hosts who should come clean, it is the editors and field reporters as well. More bias occurs down in the ranks than in the anchor chair and on that score Fox is currently head and shoulders above their competitors. Actual reported stories on Fox are better examples of journalism than the rest while CNN still leads in being able to smother a large breaking story with boots on the ground. So for me I favor Fox for general news reporting but when something major blows I flip to CNN. Primetime on all of em is a big wasteland of shouting. MSNBC though isn't really good for much of anything unless you like Olberman or like watching Dateline reruns and reality shows about prison life. To be a serious news channel ya really need to be able to spring for a 24/7 sat transponder.
Democrat delenda est
Also known as, "Truth has a well-known liberal bias."
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I think most people would prefer to be in a tax bracket that gets taxed like that and keep the rest, rather than where they are now.
Then they're welcome to come up with ways to make that money. Once they've busted their asses in several jobs, risking hundreds of thousands of dollars on investments, and earned their first million, they can suddenely be taxed right back to where they started, because congress thinks they can spend 600,000 of that man's first generated million better than he can.
Welcome to "How to ruin an economy 101: Start by taking away everything from those who know how to make and invest money, then give it to the worst investors you can." The Obama plan!
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
Out of curiosity, how would you explain the multiple hundreds of billions of dollars of budget deficets by Reagen, Bush I, and Bush II, all 'fiscal conservative' Republicans, and the hundreds of billions of dollars of budget surpluses of Clinton, a 'tax and spend liberal?'
Honest question.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Of course not. However, why are so many economists Democrat-leaning? Is it because Democrats gravitate towards economics? Are economics degrees biased towards liberals? Is it because their knowledge of economics leads them to support Democrat policy? If it's the latter, then the demographic does not indicate an unfair bias. A bias, yes, but a valid one. What would be more strange is a sample of 500 economists who are 50/50 split between Obama and McCain, yet who are 70/30 split on party affiliation. That would imply that either Obama or McCain do not represent their party's normal economic line, or that 20%+ of the economists would vote against their economic judgement.
all our republican Presidents since the 80s have been GOP, so what difference does it make?
the surprising bit is how much worse the republicans were when they were given the chance.
Not really, considering the jackass in chief; I don't recall anybody else so obviously stacking federal agencies based on dogma instead of competence or being so ineffective.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
What the "tax the rich" crowd doesn't realize is that the tax bracket applies to -earnings-. You have to be -working-. Most ``rich'' (what I'd consider rich) folks don't really ``earn'' anything at all. For example, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and just about every other `rich' person who ``works'', makes exactly $100,000 per year. They'd actually benefit under most tax plans.
Warren Buffet jokes that he pays -less- taxes than his secretary!
Now, if you're "earning" >$200k a year (highest tax braket), you're not ``rich''---you're just well off (probably thanks to luck, brains and good education; in that order). You likely have a boss and work Monday through Friday just like the rest of us.
What the tax brackets do is create a "bump" in taxes around $200k mark. Taxes increase upto that point---and beyond it (once you learn to invest and not put cash into savings account as income), they drop.
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
And, since there were more than 3x as many Democrats in the pool as Republicans, I would assume that many of the "Independents" were also left-leaning. For whatever reason, apparently "economist" is a field that attracts liberals.
It's entirely possible that the field makes liberals instead of attracting them. I suspect that the important factor is less "being an economist" than being an academic. Non-academic types go into industry, and (I'd imagine) would be more likely to be rightists.
One other factor: the economic mode of analysis encourages nonjudgementalism regarding individual decision-making, so I suspect that economists would tend to be socially liberal, whatever their fiscial position.
The one fact that jumped out at me though was the lack of correlation between the economists' view on taxation and their own income. This single fact mutes my own cynicism.
Wikileaks, no DNS
So, you're advocating that we try to lower prices of a traded commodity by announcing something which can't make any short term changes on the basis that even if it's not going to be effective in the short term, current market factors can lower prices on the perception that in the long run this will make a difference????
WTF?? So, through the use of wishful thinking and vacuous statements, we can control market prices today? Is this an economic policy or a tarot reading??
Sorry if I'm mis-characterizing what you said, but making the announcement of hypothetical future production to lower current prices will last for, what, an afternoon??? The market will respond to actual data, and simply announcing it will have a really short term blip, if any at all.
Man, I think Paris Hilton had a better oil policy than that. ;-)
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
In the trenches? I think your average CEO resides in an ivory tower every bit as removed from reality as a career academic.
Similarly, I do not believe that the CEO's self interest is particularly aligned with that of the staff. Most people have mortgages and bills to pay and have to plan for a future which revolves around meeting those financial commitments. CEO's are grossly overpaid and are evaluated based on the most recent quarterly earnings. Executive compensation packages tend to reward short-term behaviour, reflecting the reality that most CEO's are free agents recruited from outside the organization to achieve some goal. Without a history within the organization, or any long-term commitment to it, it is in the CEO's best interest to game the system for maximum short-term advantage and if that doesn't work out, there is always the golden parachute to look forward to.
This behaviour is closely aligned with the interests of the largest shareholders who are not typically long-term investors. I'm not so sure that the short and long-term interests of the staff are taken into account, but that's fair enough. CEO's are accountable to the shareholders - not the staff.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
It's not that we don't believe in markets, it's just that we know that the market isn't "free" enough to trust it to "do the right thing", hasn't been since the late 19th century. When you have a lot of wealth and power concentrated in the hands of a few, there is no free market because those in power control it to stifle competition etc.
It was different when you had a billion small to medium sized businesses effectively competiting, once you had robber barons and megacorps the free market was dead. That's when you need a very strong central government to keep the robber barons from running havok over everything.
Moneywise, I can't support a candidate who promises to tax the bejeezus out of my bracket, give the windfall to a bunch of clowns with a 14 percent approval rating (Congress), and hope they spend it wisely. Unfortunately, the alternative to the guy who promises to pillage my wallet is a lukewarm cadaver. I'm in trouble either way.
if you check out those sentences, you may think that the republican administrations up to date, especially this administration, havent taken cash out of his pocket. and democrats, supposedly, take cash from your pocket, and give it to senate to waste. how simple. but also, how stupid.
...
yea republican administration didnt increase your taxes, up until now. but what did they do instead ? they used EXISTING public funds and wasted them on foreign wars and crap, totaling to $400bn/year for iraq, ALONE.
spent money, has to come from somewhere, right ? sure. and since these republicans are the puppet of big business, and they cant tax them, and since they wont tax you also, what can they do ? they used existing public funds from ELSEWHERE. juggled all kinds of government funds, issued bonds, sold bonds to chinese and so on.
i dont think there is anybody among you who would be stupid as to not understand that these spendings, these debts are going to be paid from somewhere.
from where ?
not the little green men, for sure. YOU are going to pay it. EVEN IF it doesnt come directly from your pocket in the form of taxes.
and here you have, a financial disaster, in which you not only sank yourselves, but dragged ENTIRE world down with you. what a shame, what ignorance, what foolishness. EVERYone of us on the globe, suffering because of this.
'deregulation' 'hands off business'
economy is another SOCIAL aspect of human life. as with every social aspect of life, because there are more than one person involved, there are going to be opportunists, schemers, bastards, criminals, fraudsters, every kind of people.
if you do "hands off", that basically means that all these ill willed elements of the society will be free to roam as they like in that field of life.
and so it did happen. some smartyboys came up with a scheme to make quick bucks over another segment of society, painted some high risk loans so nicely that low income people were lured to take them, and then also sold bonds tied to these high risk loans not only nationally but internationally. and, because 'hands off business', they werent regulated, overseen, controlled and checked if they were attempting anything fishy.
way to go.
now we are all headed towards the bottom of the trash can, globally.
and yet, a person like scott adams, STILL talks about 'take money from my pocket with taxes'.
HELLOOOOOOOO !!!?!?!?! with this goddamn global crisis, more cash is going to get out of your pocket than democrats can EVER tax out of you !!!
holy cow.
people, it happened. it should NOT have happened, but it happened.
so please, this time, be smart, think long term, and elect someone who is not as idiot as to still say "deregulation" every other sentence.
Read radical news here
What the hell man, have you never heard of a companies stock going up or down based on an announcement? Example: CEO of a company leaves, stock drops. They haven't lost or made any money (yet), but it had an effect on the price of the stock THAT DAY. Another example is apple announces iNewAwesomeProduct and their stock prices go up because people are betting that they will make money in the future.
It's one thing to observe that the stock market is a bunch of skittish people. It's another thing to try to control current oil prices in any meaningful way by saying that in the future you'll have more production, and then rely on the skittish market to sort things out by lowering the price.
A half-day blip versus anything which fundamentally changes anything tangible about the market -- different things, no?
I think in the case of oil, speculation and all sorts of other factors would outweigh announcing new, future (hypothetical?) production capacity. But, unlike Scott Adams apparently, I'm no economist, so WTF do I know? ;-)
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
So the solution to robber barons is robber barons with armies?
There are a number of different places that show this, but this is the first one I found in google.
The reason for the difference is that Republicans are opposed in doctrine to a balanced budget. Supply-side economics demand tax cuts, with the justification that they'll make back what they spend when the economy grows. The economy DOES grow, but they cut taxes again. This cycle means that their doctrine demands perpetual debt, and our kids are effectively subsidizing our economic development, becuase the doctrine will NEVER allow for taxes to be high enough to pay any of it back.
It's been a long time.
Funny, I had Keynesian Economics taught, and always saw it aligning with Conservatism and Libertarianism more than Liberalism.
That's probably because you, like most people, think of the caricature of Liberalism that has been painted by right-wing demagogues instead of trying to look at the policies of the various people in the Democratic party.
The strength of the Republican party is their ability to march in lock-step and deliver a consistent message, even if they don't actually do what they say, they always say the same thing--small government, less taxes, Christian values.
The weakness of the Democratic party is that they act like a herd of cats. Each has their own pet issues and sees little reason to support their party members pet issues. From southern conservative blue dog democrats, to west coast left-wing hippie crazies, to Midwestern democratic farm labor, to eastern blue collars and east coast blue bloods. They move in a lot of different directions at once and tend to get steamrolled by the Republican juggernaut.
This allows the Republicans to define "Liberals" however they want and they've managed to hijack the word and make it synonymous with a lot of straw man arguments of their own creation.
The production is in the future but NOT hypothetical We already know the oil IS there.
What the "tax the rich" crowd doesn't realize is that the tax bracket applies to -earnings-. You have to be -working-. Most ``rich'' (what I'd consider rich) folks don't really ``earn'' anything at all. For example, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and just about every other `rich' person who ``works'', makes exactly $100,000 per year. They'd actually benefit under most tax plans.
Warren Buffet jokes that he pays -less- taxes than his secretary!
Okay, let's put Warren Buffet's quote in context.
Buffett was saying that secretaries are being taxed at an unfairly high rate compared to the effective tax rates on very rich people (such as himself).
Regarding the comment about more than $200k per year not making you "rich", that varies widely by where you live. Someone in San Francisco making $200k per year may be just scraping by in a middle class existence, whereas the same income in west Texas might make you a land baron. This makes discussion of what "rich" means very confusing.
Except that the oil market is a global market. So there is no such thing when you get down to it as "Domestic Oil".
We can't add much to the oil supply. Saying that the promise of future domestic oil would lead to prices dropping is like saying that a fly at 1,000 feet will affect the brightness of the sun. In order for oil prices to be affected the entire world's oil supply has to change. The US simply doesn't have enough oil to affect the world oil supply at that sort of scale. If we increase oil supply by 50% we would only swing the global scales about 5-10%. That means we would only see a 5-10% drop in price.
The problem with gasoline as far as price goes is that it's more than 200% or more above where it was not too long ago. We can't increase the supply 200%. And even if we did increase the world output by 5% there is nothing stopping OPEC from just cutting their output to keep prices high. If we want to exhaust our reserves quicker to drop prices they'll just drop their output to rebalance the cost.
We have to face the fact. We can't control the prices of oil without imposing protectionist, nationalized oil trading and severe regulation... which would harm us far more than buying oil from countries who would be stupid in the head to stop selling us Oil.
For all of Iran's bluster-- if they stopped selling us oil they would A) Get invaded and B) Go bankrupt in probably the reverse order. What keeps these governments in power (say Saudi Arabia) and not the crazies is that the people who tolerate us are getting payed by us. If they stopped selling us Oil they would go bankrupt and the crazies would have their heads on sticks by sun down.
Money buys influence. Money buys friendship. Even venezuela for all its bluster isn't so stupid that it would stop selling oil and bankrupt the government in order to give us the finger.
Actually, the deficit is the annual contribution to the debt.
I think that pretty much sums-up the situation in the USA. People don't even talk about the debt anymore. The most you can hope for is talk of reducing the rate at which you are adding to the debt.
I believe academia itself is conducive to liberalism. The "real world" tends to drive people back towards conservatism
Education tends to lead people to liberalism, especially at colleges comprised of a more diverse student body beyond the local community or beyond state lines.
This is why there is a corrosive undercurrent of anti-educationism occasionally cropping up in conservative dialog. It is pretty much a cliche, the small town teenager goes off to college somewhere and the parents are horrified to see him come home with more liberal attitudes. People in the community see the neighbor's kid come back from college with more liberal attitudes. Conservative parents in the community start developing an attitude against sending their kids college, or at least to keep them in the local community college.
If you look at liberalism vs conservatism, there is exactly one overriding determining factor. The population of urban and suburban areas are liberal even in the Reddest of states, and in rural areas people are conservative even in the Bluest of states. Urban and suburban areas in Red of states vote Democrat, rural areas in Blue states vote Republican.
The cause is interaction and familiarity with people from different backgrounds and with diverse ideas. It leads to liberal social tolerance and acceptance of diversity. Experience that people of other races and religions and national origins and sexual orientations are not scary, Learning that the best way for everyone to get along is that you let them live how they wish to live and they let you live how you wish to live. A socially liberal live-and-let-live attitude. If two people want an interracial marriage, I'll let them live how they want and they'll let me live how I want. If two people want a gay marriage, I'll let them live how they want and they'll let me live how I want.
A larger college is like a mini-city bringing together diverse people from a wider area.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The problem with gasoline as far as price goes is that it's more than 200% or more above where it was not too long ago. We can't increase the supply 200%.
WTF are you smoking? Percentage increase in market price is not in any way linearly related to shortfall in supply. Supply can sit at 99% of demand and prices can climb a lot more than 1% before leveling off. Conversely, if production is 105% of demand, prices can drop a hell of a lot more than 5% before it levels off. It's completely dependent on the shape of the demand curve.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Of course it will be fine-- because the next Democrat guy in office will have to raise taxes and cut spending, which will get him two things: a balanced budget and voted out. Then the republican can step back in and say "see, our system works just fine."
UTF-8: There and Back Again
The fact that a doctrine is broadly accepted by a scientific discipline confers a greater than even level of credibility to it. To put it more simply, if 90% of people who study X believe Y, than people that believe !Y face a higher burden of proof. They may be right, the majority may be horribly wrong, but in general, if someone is pushing a revolutionary counter theory, it is more likely that they have made an oversight than that everyone else has made oversights. (Not impossible by any means, just more likely).
To put it simply, 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'.
I realize that you've acknowledged this, I just wanted it explicitly stated before I respond.
To be honest, the statism is, I would think, irrelevant. There hasn't been a small government candidate in 20 years, from either major party. The focus of the two parties is different, (Republicans want to protect us from others, and from evil, while Democrats want to protect us from ourselves, and from unpleasantness), but both parties are essentially in favor of a large powerful government, as long as it agrees with them.
The thing that tips economists is, I suspect, the same thing that tips most other analytical minds: the Republican party has been steadily tightening ties to the religious right. While religion is not uncommon among thinkers, secularism is more common, and evangelicalism is generally distrusted as too prescriptive and intolerant. Get rid of the Christian right, and the Republicans would probably regain a large chunk of independent to left leaning thinkers.
"if your ideals about the market are that free trade is good, controls are bad, and that manipulating and putting controls on the market will be harmful, what's the point in becoming an economist in the first place?"
If you've already decided what you believe, no point in studying it; Hooray for blind faith!
It's so damn effective in america...I've seen a lot of people put forth opinions about why it's so effective, but the simple fact remains: smart people are viewed with suspicion. New ideas...Suspicious. Too much education...Lacking common sense.
I'm not one of those people who think that IQ trumps all; there are some very "dumb" smart people who I wouldn't want to see in the government in any form.
At the same time, people who are unwilling to listen to experts blow my mind. You may not agree, but if you don't listen to the joker who does it for a living, then how can you pretend to be able to make a good decision?
The gas tax thing was a great example: economists were practically unanimous about it being a bad idea (which is unusual), so Obama should have had this huge advantage in speaking about it..."I think this, and everyone who knows anything about it agrees with me, so I fucking ROCK!"
In a country that really values education and learning, that would have been a huge victory...Here it was a way in which his opponents could portray him as an out-of-touch smarty-pants.
I just can't believe it plays so well. In my mind, Obama's academic background is a good thing. I want a smart, thoughtful person in charge. I don't want another moron who can't comprehend cause and effect.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Once they've busted their asses in several jobs, risking hundreds of thousands of dollars on investments, and earned their first million, they can suddenely be taxed right back to where they started
In 1986, my first job during high school paid me $3.45 an hour. That's the equivalent of about $6.45 an hour today.
In 1991, my first job after college paid me $27,500, or about $40,000 in today's terms.
I promise you that when I make my hypothetical first $1 million, I will not be taxed back to either of those starting points.
Well, gas prices go up really fast on speculation. Or did anyone else in the US not notice how fast gas prices went up when Ike went through.
The oil/gas markets are changing more on what people think will happen then what actually does happen.
Welcome to "How to ruin an economy 101: Start by taking away everything from those who know how to make and invest money, then give it to the worst investors you can."
Isn't that better than, "Take money away from those who don't know how to make it"? I mean, the people who know how to make money can go make more, right? Whereas if you take it from people who don't know how to make money, they'll remain destitute for life.
An upper class of hardworking geniuses that support the rest of their society seems to me to be a better thing than having a lower class of slaves.
And I speak as someone who's probably already in the upper class. Please, tax me more, and repair the roads/network infrastructure/health care in America. Because if I didn't have those things when I was clawing my way up, I'd have never made it this far.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Then they're welcome to come up with ways to make that money. Once they've busted their asses in several jobs, risking hundreds of thousands of dollars on investments, and earned their first million, they can suddenely be taxed right back to where they started, because congress thinks they can spend 600,000 of that man's first generated million better than he can.
Taxed back to where they started? Are you crazy? Do you think someone who only makes $400,000 isn't taxed at all?
Hint: Even in our progressive tax system, you do not end up with less money overall by earning more money but then paying more in taxes. You will end up with more money. How is that taking everything? Oh right it isn't. This is just the usual "taxes provide a disincentive to earn more money" canard, or should I say retard.
The enemies of Democracy are
No sane economist would vote for failed supply-side economics. It has less to do with academia and more to do with simple facts. The Republicans have increased the debt 10,000% since Reagan first took office. Ironically, from what I hear, the best time for workers were years before he took office, and it's been a downhill slide ever since.
It's been a long time.
Sorry if I'm mis-characterizing what you said, but making the announcement of hypothetical future production to lower current prices will last for, what, an afternoon??? The market will respond to actual data, and simply announcing it will have a really short term blip, if any at all.
The potential for future additional oil supply would have a greater effect on the decisions of major oil producers. Saudi Aramco and PDVSA, etc., are sitting on a lot of oil and need to decide whether to pump now at the current price or pump later at a later price (minus inflation).
I think if the US made a serious decision to drill for more oil (Alaska ANWR and Alaska offshore are the only really big supplies we are ruling out now), it may signal that future oil prices may be lower, which could lead producers to decide to produce more now rather than risk producing at lower prices later.
But it also might not have any effect if those major oil drilling countries are more limited in production by nationalized inefficient oil companies rather than rational economic calculation. So I wouldn't call it a sure thing, thus I'd be careful to examine potential environmental damage of such actions closely.
Adding to what you wrote, across the board tax cuts do not really help people in lower income groups. The popular theory propagated by the Pubs is that it stimulates growth which is partially true, but it also results in inflation which wipes out the advantage of getting an extra hundred dollars in your paycheck for low/middle class workers.
This is exactly what the Bush tax cuts have achieved. Education is the most important factor that keeps income inequality in check and allows future generations of low/middle class families to catch up with rich kids. The cost of college education has soared to an extent where only the rich can send their kids to the top schools, irrespective of merit. The U.S. used to be such a great country because there was some balance between capitalism and socialism. The extreme forms of both have proved to be unworkable. In the past 8 years the balance has tilted firmly in favor of capitalism. If the basic framework of an economy is weak, how can it support long-term growth? If healthcare costs soar to an extent where it's not possible for small businesses to afford it, most people will be afraid to leave their jobs in big firms to form startups.
If the oil is not profitable it will not be extracted. I'm not JUST talking about offshore drilling either by the way. I'm talking about Oil Sands in Colorado and vast oil reserves in ANWR. The point is for government to not stand in the way of the market and supply getting to that market.
Is that why so many "liberals" are against people's rights to arm myself, to hunt, to allow oil companies to drill on their land, and other ideas that they have no real-world exposure to but nevertheless want to dictate for people who do? Is it also related to my right to work for my own welfare and choose for myself whether, where, and how much I donate to others'?
No, I think that it's just a different breed of hypocrisy for most of the Americans who call themselves "liberal" to use the term. I agree that, in theory, what you are saying makes sense, regarding exposure to more perspectives causing a person to broaden his horizons.
In practice, though, it's just a different set of values that people try to force on one another. The Republicans and Democrats all want you to fit their respective molds. A true liberal doesn't ask you to fit any mold beyond "don't mess with my shit," but is too rare a beast to be found in any political discussion or election.
Then they're welcome to come up with ways to make that money. Once they've busted their asses in several jobs, risking hundreds of thousands of dollars on investments, and earned their first million, they can suddenely be taxed right back to where they started, because congress thinks they can spend 600,000 of that man's first generated million better than he can.
I suspect that for every unfortunate slob who busts his ass and risks his hundreds of thousands to make his first million, there are at least 100 other lucky guys who bust their humps their whole lives without ever facing the disappointment of reaching the maximum tax bracket. Lucky bastards. Probably even get subsidized burial plots.
Welcome to "How to ruin an economy 101: Start by taking away everything from those who know how to make and invest money, then give it to the worst investors you can." The Obama plan!
So what's that make the Bush plan? "How to ruin an economy 002: Remedial Ruination for Privileged Frat Boys"?
I am not a crackpot.
Academia as a whole is fairly left-leaning, but economics departments are probably the most conservative field of academia. Where do you think the underpinnings of the libertarian philosophy were carried out? In university economics departments, in the U.S. centered around the University of Chicago's.
Of course, it depends on what kind of conservatism you're looking for. If you're looking for free-market, minimal-regulation, efficient-capitalism, free-trade sorts of conservatism, it's not only still present but probably the dominant position in American economics departments, the so-called "neoliberal consensus" (the "liberal" in "neoliberal" is not very closely related to modern American political liberalism). Only a minority of American economists take any sort of strong opposition to that in favor of social democracy or socialism or anything of that sort.
If you're looking for something more narrowly political, like people who think George Bush's (or Ronald Reagan's) economic policies are good, well yes, you'll look more in vain, but not really because of anything to do with liberals vs. conservatives; more because supply-side economics has never been widely respected among even the conservative wing of economists.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The point is that were you to remove that structure, big competing companies would merge into monopolies, to the detriment of the economy, and history has demonstrated this, yeilding a legal structure to prevent that "bug" in the capitalist model.
In the 1930's, lots of banking regulations were put into place in response to the collapses of the Great Depression. A few years ago, we had major banking deregulation. Now we have the current mortgage crisis, because we let loose one of the bugs in the capitalist system -- people will take loans that they can pay in the short term but not in the long term, if you let them.
That doesn't mean capitalism is wrong or broken, it just means that capitalism only works with some amount of regulation; and some folks seem to forget that from time to time. Can there be too much regulation? Sure! But there can also be too little.
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
"Do everything" only sounds like a strategy to people who don't have the foggiest idea of what to do.
The coastal reserves and ANWR might be a bridge towards alternative energy, but not any time in the next couple of decades, given the total amount of productive capacity worldwide.
At least based on what we believe to be true today. If it turns out everybody else is fibbing about the size of their reserves, we might find ourselves tapping these in a hurry. Which is still no excuse for pretending it's going to help with energy prices today, or that it has anything to do with the market bubble in energy prices over the last few years.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Let me get this straight. You say that drilling MIGHT have an upside but it MIGHT be limited. We also MIGHT HAVE to use our own oil AND it take a long time to get out of the ground once we start. SO in conclusion you say we should not drill at all? It seems to me your own argument means we should drill as soon as possible.
So instead of raising supply you think we should keep it constant while demand increases? That spells disaster anyway you look at it. Your own reasoning means we should drill now. Plus people really underestimate how much oil is in the oil sands of Colorado and up in ANWR.
lupis42 kind of addressed your point in a roundabout way, but I would like to address it more directly.
The things you mentioned are not in the same category as the things the grandparent listed. Gay marriage, interracial marriage, women's right to have abortions, etc have little to no effect on other members of society.
On the other hand, gun ownership, oil drilling, etc have very real effects on others in society who were not involved with such decisions and activities.
In other words, you made a classic apples vs. oranges comparison.
Russ, your 'monopoly game' is completely specious.
It ignores the fact that most of the state-supported monopolies are in markets that would support natural monopolies if it weren't for government intervention.
While the implementation has been wrought with problems, "state-supported monopolies" exist to restrict the actions of what would naturally be a monopoly anyway.
So, in order to make your game less specious, let's change the requirements a bit. With the exceptions of patents (since they are outside the realm of this short discussion), you name a state-supported monopoly in a market that does not tend towards monopoly, and I'll name a state-supported monopoly in a market that does.
Ready... set... go.
[crickets]
The fact of the matter is that there is no perfect free market, and market inefficiencies tend towards monopoly. Even within the Austrian school of economic thought, it's required that correction be made for monopolies in order for models to work efficiently.
And I'll note that copyright law does not enforce monopoly. Copyrighted works are not commodity goods.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
You, sir, seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
In any case, the value of oil is only going to go up. We should sit on it as long as we can.
Play Command HQ online
"Corporations are treated legally as individuals because they must be in order to have liability. Are you opposed to that?"
There is no reason that liability and "individual" have to go together. Laws (and courts) created corporations and their "personhoood" and can be changed.
In any case, corporations are designed to prevent personal liability. The only liability they have is monetary and that only really applies to their shareholders. You can't put corporations in jail. They can be immortal.
"I don't see how you can say that someone has property rights but then dictate how they can use their property."
The same way we dictate limitations to other rights. Owning property and the use of it are two different things. Related yes, but not the same.
Corporations are treated legally as individuals because they must be in order to have liability. Are you opposed to that? It seems important. . .
I think he's for that, but you aren't. For example, Ford knew that the Pinto would kill people. They made them anyway. The bean counters said it would be cheaper. And, after it was discovered that they were killing people for profit, they were sued. If not for the discovery of the memo that revealed this, it probably would have been cheaper to kill people, go to court, lose, and keep going.
Now, if I were to kill someone for profit, as an individual, would I be allowed to continue my business that previously resulted in the deaths of people, as well as never see the inside of a jail cell? If you think that a hitman who killed people for profit should go to jail, then you are anti-corporation.
I don't see how you can say that someone has property rights but then dictate how they can use their property.
I have the right to bear arms. I do not have the right to use them on you. Is that a simple enough description of how someone can "own" something and still not have 100% control over how it is used?
Learn to love Alaska
This is ridiculous. On what do you base your claim that Scott Adams did not work hard for his money, and does not continue to do so? Have you ever written a saleable book or started a company?
No, so you have no idea. If Adams didn't work hard for his money, he wouldn't care about keeping the fruits of his labor.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock