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...)?
its actually surprising how forthcoming he was about his own biases too. A nice change from the majority of statistics that show up on the internets.
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.
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 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...
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
> 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!!!!
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?
Don't blame me. I'm voting for Kodos.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
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"
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.
Also known as, "Truth has a well-known liberal bias."
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
all our republican Presidents since the 80s have been GOP, so what difference does it make?
How observant of you. Did you also notice that all our Caucasian presidents have been white?
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
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.
(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
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.
This is a joke, right?
The only presidents since 1963 to have ever submitted balanced budgets to Congress are Johnson and Clinton. At no time since 1945 when Republicans have been in charge of both Congress and the White House have they ever reduced spending.
The vast majority of the national debt to date was accrued during the Presidencies of three men: Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, all Republicans. In Reagan's case, he was working with a Republican Senate for his first 6 years in office, and Bush had Republicans controlling both houses for 6 years as well.
The Bush II years have seen tax cut after tax cut that were, in theory, supposed to result in increased growth and therefore reduced deficit. Instead, he has posted record deficits year after year. And still, the fiction that large tax cuts will somehow reduce the deficit persists.
The idea that Democrats are the big spending party and Republicans are fiscally responsible is pure fiction, and it boggles the mind why people continue to believe it despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even the "big spending" LBJ was more fiscally responsible than the Republicans of the past 28 years.
If people would treat politics less like religion maybe they would make decisions based on actual historical data rather than what their party keeps telling them is the truth.
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 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.
Clinton never had a surplus. My numbers indicate that he wasn't even close. Despite that, the numbers are extremely favourable for democrats.
Since the end of WWII, Democrats have been in office for 26 years, Republicans 36.
Since the end of WWII, Democrats have increased the debt by 2407 inflation adjusted million dollars, Republicans 7994.
Since the end of WWII, Democrats have increased the size of the budget by 687 inflation adjusted million dollars, Republicans 1450.
Thus, adjusted for inflation, every year the Democrats were in office, they increased the budget by 26 million inflation adjusted dollars, and the debt by 92 million inflation adjusted dollars, every year they were in power.
The Republicans have increased the budget by 40 million inflation adjusted dollars, and the debt by 222 million inflation adjusted dollars, every year they were in power. My numbers are charitable in that they don't take the wars in Iraq and Afganistan into account.
Here are the calculations, done with data available commonly off the Internet.
It's incredible to realise that the Republicans are incredibly fiscally irresponsible. They NEVER cut spending. They HATE cutting spending. They ALSO hate taxes. Basically, you're looking Republicans creating MORE government than Democrats, then NOT PAYING FOR IT.
It's been a long time.