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."
Now we actually turn to Scott Adams for actual unbiased information about economics? Or, at least an attempt to explain the biases up-front? That just hurts my head!! :-P
Where's the punch line?
But, seriously, good on Scott Adams for actually doing this on his own. I think had anyone else tried to do this, we'd all be screaming loudly that they were inherently biased and had an agenda.
No matter how it goes, Adams will get more material for the strips. ;-)
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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...)?
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.
Funny, I had Keynesian Economics taught, and always saw it aligning with Conservatism and Libertarianism more than Liberalism.
antipaucity
The plain fact is that the economists surveyed think Obama would be better for the economy, by almost two-to-one. It's kind of sad how Adams had to dress the fact up by noting how many were Democrats vs. Republicans, essentially declaring it a tie:
Despite his own strong evidence that the economists were being objective -- their own income levels did not correlate to whether they thought the rich should be taxed -- he doesn't even tell us the plain fact until after he dresses it up.
His CNN writeup was an excuse to repeat three times that he would have his taxes raised by Obama. Well yeah, he makes zillions of dollars. No mention of Obama's plan to cut taxes, for almost everyone, by more than McCain's plan.
I look forward to his next survey of economists, in which he asks which is better economically, capitalism or communism, and then weights the results before revealing them. ("Not surprisingly, 88% of market-favoring economists think capitalism would be best, while 80% of socialist economists pick communism. Our economists favor capitalism on 11 of the top 13 issues, but keep in mind that" etc.)
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.
How about this (according to Michael Kinsley, Larry Bartels, etc.): Democratic presidents have consistently higher economic growth and consistently lower unemployment than Republican presidents. If you add in a time lag, you get the same result. If you eliminate the best and worst presidents, you get the same result. If you take a look at other economic indicators, you get the same result. There's just no way around it: Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations.
Unless you are already independently wealthy, you will do better under a Democratic administration than a Republican one. Plain and simple. And if you are independently wealthy, well then you probably don't really care about a GDP percentage here or there. Bottom line, if you are voting "with your feet" on the economy, a Democratic vote is the clear choice, according to historic performance.
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...
It's a racist epithet referring to black people.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
From the CNN article:
Moneywise, I can't support a candidate who promises to tax the bejeezus out of my bracket, ...
Then maybe you are in the wrong tax bracket. Try being in mine for a while. 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.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
All universities teach Keynesian economics because it was a leading theory of economics at one time. But monetary policy and supply-side economics are taught as well. That doesn't nearly explain why most economists are Democrats. Since the 1950s, Keynesian economics has fallen out of favor as Monetary Policy under Friedman took a more prominent role. In the 1980s the rage was supply-side (Reaganomics) which most critics dismiss as woefully incomplete. Previous Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has followed a more monetarist view in his tenure as Chairman.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
> It's not a black and white choice, but one of grays
That's right. Some people are trying to make this election revolve around racial issues, when in reality it should be about species. THEY'RE BOTH ALIENS! EVERYBODY PANIC!!!!
But, assuming that Adams was unbiased in his selection of samples (I haven't read TFA), we can conclude that there are more democratic economists than republican. Maybe that alone tells us something about who's better at running the economy.
What?
Don't blame me. I'm voting for Kodos.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Two economists are walking down the street. One says to the other, "hey -- isn't that a hundred dollar bill lying on the ground over there?" The other replies, "No, it can't be. If it was, someone would have picked it up by now."
include $sig;
1;
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
A "fucking cartoonist"?
How many books have you written? Have you started your own food company yet?
Wealthy people don't get that way by being lazy, son.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
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.
I'll try to help out here, though I'm probably a poor substitute for BAG.
See, Republicans are Fords. And Democrats are Toyotas. And Scott Adams has surveyed a bunch of auto industry employees about whether the industry would do better with the CEo of Ford or the CEO of Toyota running the entire auto industry.
More Toyota employees respond to the survey than Ford employees. It turns out that most employees of Toyota say the CEO of Toyota would make the auto industry better; most employees of Ford say that the CEO of Ford would do a better job.
Wait, who am I kidding. Even the employees of Ford know that the top brass at Ford are idiots.
Let's give this another shot:
The economy is a Ford Explorer. The tires on the car (the Republican machine) all agree that the car won't go anywhere if they aren't in charge, even though they are bald and going flat. The transmission (the Democratic machine) thinks that only changing gears can save the car. The engine (the "captains of industry") knows it's really in charge, but lets the tires and transmission duke it out for symbolic control of the car. Palin is the rear spoiler and the neons, pretty but do nothing for performance. Biden is the horn, but more apt to annoy everyone when he makes noise. Nader is the cataliytic converter, and Ron Paul is the loose lugnuts on the tires.
But it doesn't matter, because there are Toyotas and Hondas and Hyundais and Nissans and tons of other cars that are out-competing us... and the truth of the matter is that we need to scrap the Explorer.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
(pssst, hey: this is not a good week to be slamming people for not "believing in markets". for that matter, next week doesn't look so good, either.)
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
Where are you getting your unemployment numbers from? Clinton started with high unemployment and ended with the lowest unemployment. Growth was consistent. Compare that with Bush where there was a clear increase in unemployment when he took office and even now hasn't recovered.
I won't make you take my word for it though. Link here
All of this also coincides with salary decreases which are only now starting to recover although when adjusted for the fact that the dollar is worth 30% less now than it was four years ago and reality doesn't seem to reflect your statements. Can you please support it in some way? Carter and Reagan years were definitely not the era of responsible spending but Clinton left office with a balanced budget with a projected surplus so it is hard for anyone to take your argument seriously off hand.
Please enlighten me as I'm clearly missing some key information.
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.
The 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 budgets had total spending for the year lower than total income for the year, not based on any sort of future payoff. Those were the first surplus budgets since 1969's small surplus. The deficit returned as soon as Clinton left office, as all of Bush's budgets have been in deficit.
See the CBO data, the past 15 years of which Wikipedia nicely graphs.
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'
The accountant takes the bet, kneels down and eats the crap. The economist pays him $20. They start walking again.
Around the next corner, they see another pile of dog crap. The accountant says, "I'll bet you $20 you won't eat *that*." The economist thinks about it, and wants his $20 back, so he kneels down and eats it. The accountant pays him.
They continue walking. About a block later the accountant says, "Hey, wait a minute. We've both eaten dog crap, and neither of us have any more money than when we started."
The economist says, "Yes - but between us we've generated $40 for the economy!"
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
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
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
nope, as a degreed economist, the thing which tips competent economists is the republican attachment to reaganomics.
reaganomics attacks the consumption side of the GDP equation, which also happens to be the largest portion.
It places implicit trust in agents who have no real liability, and are subject to moral hazard which republican economic policy-makers ignore.
It ignores the long-term consequences of allowing producers to put the squeeze on their labor (hint: you become unable to sell what you make, and... and this is a very relevant one today... people are financially unable to support a home purchase)
There are numerous other aspects of economic policy which incompetent politicians on both sides ignore: such as the fact that offshoring as a multiple-round game results in destruction of the middle class, but that's a discussion for another time.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!