Oh Schadenfreud, how many times did I state this very thing. Now it's in the peer-reviewed literature. Canonized if you will.
Quote:Some of the results in this new article by Zeljka Buturovic and Dan Klein in Econ Journal Watch (a peer-reviewed journal of economics) are startling:
67% of self-described Progressives believe that restrictions on housing development (i.e., regulations that reduce the supply of housing) do not make housing less affordable.
51% believe that mandatory licensing of professionals (i.e., reducing the supply of professionals) doesn’t increase the cost of professional services.
Perhaps most amazing, 79% of self-described Progressive believe that rent control (i.e., price controls) does not lead to housing shortages.
Note that the questions here are not whether the benefits of these policies might outweigh the costs, but the basic economic effects of these policies.
Those identifying as “libertarian” and “very conservative” were the most knowledgeable about basic economics. Those identifying as “Progressive” and “Liberal” were the worst.
Quote:Those identifying as “libertarian” and “very conservative” were the most knowledgeable about basic economics. Those identifying as “Progressive” and “Liberal” were the worst.
...And water is wet.
In a fiscal sense, many of the populist left too often base decisions on raw emotion. Long term negative consequences be damned. Try explaining real-world (but dry) economics to a Facebook-obsessed 20-year-old college liberal on her way to a Fair Trade coffee shop, and their eyes glaze over and they write you off as some conservative buzzkill meanie.
And when these negative impacts inevitably occur, the solution typically offered is... more government and price controls.
To be fair, however, there are those among social conservatives who run too much on fueled emotion when it comes to foreign policy matters.
You could conclude that around 20% of progressives understand the impact of what they advocate and accept that. You could also conclude that 80% of progressives are completely clueless.
I am reminded that a friend who was saul alinsky, noam chomsky order liberal stopped me in my tracks when I brought up economics in a discussion about something or another - his response was that economics is an incestuous field of study, and he basically rejected all economic theory out of hand. I really didn't know how to respond, and it basically put an end to our discussion without any resolution. He is a history professor and pretty intelligent guy in most regards. I am reluctant to put him in either classification above and am pretty sure he wouldn't be on the right side of the stats that you mention above.
(05-07-2010 11:41 AM)I45owl Wrote: You could conclude that around 20% of progressives understand the impact of what they advocate and accept that. You could also conclude that 80% of progressives are completely clueless.
I am reminded that a friend who was saul alinsky, noam chomsky order liberal stopped me in my tracks when I brought up economics in a discussion about something or another - his response was that economics is an incestuous field of study, and he basically rejected all economic theory out of hand. I really didn't know how to respond, and it basically put an end to our discussion without any resolution. He is a history professor and pretty intelligent guy in most regards. I am reluctant to put him in either classification above and am pretty sure he wouldn't be on the right side of the stats that you mention above.
Do I need to bring up "stats/polls" on showing you wingnuts are ignorant?
(05-07-2010 11:41 AM)I45owl Wrote: You could conclude that around 20% of progressives understand the impact of what they advocate and accept that. You could also conclude that 80% of progressives are completely clueless.
I am reminded that a friend who was saul alinsky, noam chomsky order liberal stopped me in my tracks when I brought up economics in a discussion about something or another - his response was that economics is an incestuous field of study, and he basically rejected all economic theory out of hand. I really didn't know how to respond, and it basically put an end to our discussion without any resolution. He is a history professor and pretty intelligent guy in most regards. I am reluctant to put him in either classification above and am pretty sure he wouldn't be on the right side of the stats that you mention above.
I'm personally a bit skeptical of economic theory, just because the economy is so complicated you can't run controlled tests and confirm cause and effect. And it's generally passed off as gospel as if it's as well tested as gravity, even though economists don't seem to be able to agree on much, or predict the market. Also, from what I understand, there were concepts from science (physics, I think) that were applied to economic theory that, at least in the eyes of some physicists, are not appropriately applied when used in economics. Don't know much about that though. But for the most part I can't really argue with it.
The questions in the original post are not ones where I would agree with those Progressives. Pretty extreme to just dismiss it all.
(This post was last modified: 05-07-2010 04:10 PM by NIU007.)
Being confused about the finer points of keynesian theory versus austrian-school economists and which is more right in something like the "too big to fail" issue is one thing. I think in this case, he dismissed them both out of hand.
Basic ideas like restricting supply increases prices, or price controls leads to shortages ... you should be able to accept those as a sure thing, and those kind of underly most economic theory, outside of marxist theory. It is also possible he just didn't want to argue anymore and was just ******* with me, but he wasn't one to shy away from an argument, and I doubt that he thought he could convert me with a few debate tricks (but that is possible too). I think it's more likely that he genuinely dismissed the entire body of economic theory.
(This post was last modified: 05-07-2010 05:11 PM by I45owl.)
Quote:Those identifying as “libertarian” and “very conservative” were the most knowledgeable about basic economics. Those identifying as “Progressive” and “Liberal” were the worst.
...And water is wet.
In a fiscal sense, many of the populist left too often base decisions on raw emotion. Long term negative consequences be damned. Try explaining real-world (but dry) economics to a Facebook-obsessed 20-year-old college liberal on her way to a Fair Trade coffee shop, and their eyes glaze over and they write you off as some conservative buzzkill meanie.
And when these negative impacts inevitably occur, the solution typically offered is... more government and price controls.
I know I've said this on here before, but my Dad's favorite line is "when I was in college I was a liberal... then I grew up".
(05-07-2010 05:09 PM)I45owl Wrote: Being confused about the finer points of keynesian theory versus austrian-school economists and which is more right in something like the "too big to fail" issue is one thing. I think in this case, he dismissed them both out of hand.
Basic ideas like restricting supply increases prices, or price controls leads to shortages ... you should be able to accept those as a sure thing, and those kind of underly most economic theory, outside of marxist theory. It is also possible he just didn't want to argue anymore and was just ******* with me, but he wasn't one to shy away from an argument, and I doubt that he thought he could convert me with a few debate tricks (but that is possible too). I think it's more likely that he genuinely dismissed the entire body of economic theory.
'
That clip is money...I represent shotcaller Hayek...fo'shizzle..word.
