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."
barack Obama is one.
economically productive people are not "economists", they have other job titles.
the real question: does it surprise anyone that if only 27% of the respondents are Republicans that the results would show a bias towards Obama?
antipaucity
They must be counting all the Marxism departments as Economics departments. It is evidently useless to ask economists anything as if they were a homogenous group.
"Don't ask for whom the ^G tolls."
I dunno, but I'd love to jiga Palin's boo
Ummmm....did that study completely gloss over the Carter and Reagan years? Does it take into account that JFK was a tax-cutter and Nixon had little idea on what he was doing economically? I look at history, instead of just numbers, and come up with interesting other conclusions...like how unemployment has been, on average, lower in a Bush Presidency than Clinton's; how we were coming out of a recession the quarter BEFORE Clinton took office, and we were tanking before he left...high debate against such a premise here...
isn't one of the core tenets of Keynesianism that the government, via careful picking of winners and losers (i.e. investment) creates a "multiplier effect", known commonly as the "multiplier" ? And didn't Milton Friedman, former Keynesian-turned-libertarian (and a nobel prize winning economist, btw), pretty much bury Keynesianism in all but name?
To the extent that liberalism no longer seems like Keynes is probably a reflection of modern liberals being unashamed socialists and not even pretending to beleive in markets any more.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
If Democrats are so enlightened why did Obama get the nod over Hillary? The "enlightened" apparently bought into the hype of someone with no credentials.
(I'm not a Clinton fan, btw)
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
like how unemployment has been, on average, lower in a Bush Presidency than Clinton's
Data, or preferably graphs, please.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
I've always perceived the following divide: People who think without doing favor the current Democrat liberalism, which involves a strong government protecting people from themselves, and tolerating everything that doesn't offend them. People who do without thinking favor the current Republican conservatism, involving a strong government protecting people from others, and favoring conformity in moral and social attitudes. People who both do and think tend to either favor compromise, or stick strongly to either Libertarian or Marxist ideals. (Personal wealth often plays a role here). This holds sufficiently true (95+% of the time) in my experience, however YMMV. Doing here refers to generally difficult or unpleasant labor, regardless of whether it is physical or mental. If it is often repetitious, thankless, frustrating, or simply boring, it counts a doing. (It doesn't, however, matter if it's an occupation, or otherwise for personal benefit, or just a hobby though). Thinking here refers to regularly analyzing and interpreting information, and connecting facts to come to independent conclusions. Once again, doesn't matter why it's done, just that analytical thought is regularly used.
By productive do you mean "sitting on their asses enjoying the proceeds from their robber baron grandfather's greed and evil"? Socialized medicine works and it's cheaper than the system we currently have, all we have to do is ask the people who already benefit from it.
by good portion you do you mean crazy over privileged adolescent minded Ron Paul fanatic Slashdot libertarians? The guys who, when it gets to the nitty gritty, don't want to pay any taxes, Because they love their wallet and have no empathy for anyone that isn't them at all?
Wrong. Their interest is not in being as accurate as they can. Their personal stake is in having everyone *think* that they are accurate. This is an important distinction that causes rampant group think in academia.
I can't believe it didn't occur to me to mention that the Republican party has been playing up the anti-intellectualism in appealing to their base these days.
That Clinton, he was a real sharp study, especially when he was dildoing some fat cunt with a cigar.