Econ 101

[chuck]

Interesting insight in this article from the Wall Street Journal:
Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader? - By Daniel B. Klein

How would you evaluate the following statements?
From the linked article, I've replicated the eight survey questions about basic economics. If you don't know or if you feel the statement is ambiguous or half right/half wrong, then select "E" (not sure)

1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services.
A) strongly agree; B) somewhat agree; C) somewhat disagree; D) strongly disagree; E) not sure.

2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago.
A) strongly agree; B) somewhat agree; C) somewhat disagree; D) strongly disagree; E) not sure.

3) Rent control leads to housing shortages.
A) strongly agree; B) somewhat agree; C) somewhat disagree; D) strongly disagree; E) not sure.

4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly.
A) strongly agree; B) somewhat agree; C) somewhat disagree; D) strongly disagree; E) not sure.

5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited,
A) strongly agree; B) somewhat agree; C) somewhat disagree; D) strongly disagree; E) not sure.

6) Free trade leads to unemployment.
A) strongly agree; B) somewhat agree; C) somewhat disagree; D) strongly disagree; E) not sure.

7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment.
A) strongly agree; B) somewhat agree; C) somewhat disagree; D) strongly disagree; E) not sure.

8)Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable.
A) strongly agree; B) somewhat agree; C) somewhat disagree; D) strongly disagree; E) not sure.

To evaluate your answer and see how you compare, go to the linked article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...930932412.html).

[steelish]

LOVED IT!

Thanks so much

[TantricSoul]

Cute ... accurate or unbiased ... hardly ... but it is cute.

[chuck]

Cute ... accurate or unbiased ... hardly ... but it is cute.

Polls and surveys are rarely (if ever) accurate or unbiased. That's why I riled when Bill Clinton governed by polls and poll manipulation. This survey is indicative, however, and it is disturbing.

I wouldn't call it 'cute.' It shows more than an ignorance of basics that influences a multitude of voters. Remember, this survey has the option of saying "not sure" that does not count against them (i.e. if someone answers not sure on all 8, they get a perfect score of no wrong answers). This survey shows what many people believe to be true is just wrong.

Ronald Reagan summed it up well with this quote "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so."

Take the concept that most people have that raising taxes by an entity will always increase the revenue for that entity. It has been shown time and time again that tax increases often decrease revenue. New York City found by raising taxes, the rich moved out and they had a substantial decline in revenue. Taxes are as much about providing power as they are about generating revenue.

[TantricSoul]

What I find cute about this piece is the number of propaganda tools and tactics included within.

Whats also cute is the black and white look at Econ 101.

However economies don't operate at the 101 level, more like the 595 level.
And for every George Mason University professor that writes a cute, fun poking "I'm right and you're wrong" article, I can show you another from Yale or Harvard with the opposite opinion that is equally convincing.

Yay ...

When do we stop jibing each other for which side of the political equation you are on, and get to something that is more serious than cute? That is something that I would: 1) Strongly agree with.



Respecfully,
Tantric

[chuck]

What I find cute about this piece is the number of propaganda tools and tactics included within.

What I find interesting about the comment is the tendency to respond to an opinion by giving it a disparaging label as if that is a valid counter to the point being made.

...economies don't operate at the 101 level, more like the 595 level.

Without the basics, the upper levels collapse. It appears that the basics have been ignored and we are finding ourselves in a financial bind using only the 595 stuff.

And for every George Mason University professor that writes a cute, fun poking "I'm right and you're wrong" article, I can show you another from Yale or Harvard with the opposite opinion that is equally convincing.

Please do, not that I give Yale or Harvard any high marks for being unbiased, balanced, ethical, or logical.

When do we stop jibing each other for which side of the political equation you are on, and get to something that is more serious than cute? That is something that I would: 1) Strongly agree with.

The ball was in your court and you responded with a jibing attack.

Why not respond to the points that were presented in the piece rather than using meaningless labels and trying to put on airs about Yale/Harvard vs. George Mason University?

For example: Why is our education system failing that misinformation is believed? (If they are wrong about 101, you can be sure they aren't right about 595) Is the skewed balance of political philosophy indicative of ignorance, bias, or indoctrination? Are the results an indication of bias in our educational system?

These are all important issues. An informed populace is necessary to maintain our freedom and conversely, a misinformed populace is not cute and endangers it.

[VaAugusta]

Pretty sure courses are offered on the thousand levels.. but if we're still going to retain this "101" idea, then I must be a genius in my 3000 level economic courses.

[denuseri]

Well by the summation of the survey in the op, liberal bias has contributed to economic misfortune.

The liberals are supposed to hold the majority sway over education as well so... maby thats why education standards and practices are so fudged up.

Though imho one should avoid a blame it all on any one faction kind of mentality.

I didn't see a jibe in Tantrics post myself, he just pointed out that the sophism used in politics is rampant in both camps is all and that for things to change for the better it would be really benifical for those kinds of tactics to be put aside.

[chuck]

Well by the summation of the survey in the op, liberal bias has contributed to economic misfortune.

The author definitely points in that direction, but only states that "that many of our leaders and their constituents are economically unenlightened" and goes on to state that that fact may be responsible for our economic troubles. He relies on the reader to associate that statement with the findings presented in the body of his piece.

The liberals are supposed to hold the majority sway over education as well so... maby thats why education standards and practices are so fudged up.

That is my belief. From the results of this survey, it is easy to surmise that the educational system is teaching doctrine instead of fact.

Though imho one should avoid a blame it all on any one faction kind of mentality.

I hate absolutes and can't see placing all the blame anywhere. I do place a lot of the blame on the liberal educational system and I've seen nothing logical that better explains why much of the populace support positions that are detrimental to our economy.

I didn't see a jibe in Tantrics post myself,

I read the word "cute" in the context he used it as derisive. If I misinterpreted his intent, I owe him an apology.

he just pointed out that the sophism used in politics is rampant in both camps is all and that for things to change for the better it would be really benifical for those kinds of tactics to be put aside.

He equated the report with claims of similar but opposing points of view but has yet back up his claim or provide an example. Regardless, pointing to a flaw elsewhere is not a valid way to address a flaw that is being addressed. I agree that unsupported derisive comments is not a beneficial tactic and should be put aside. It would indeed be beneficial that, if there is an issue with the survey and/or the article that describes it, there will be an honest critique of it and not just a "cute" dismissal.

[denuseri]

The author definitely points in that direction, but only states that "that many of our leaders and their constituents are economically unenlightened" and goes on to state that that fact may be responsible for our economic troubles. He relies on the reader to associate that statement with the findings presented in the body of his piece.

A cute use of sophism imho and not an all that subtle one eaither in regards to the idea that liberalism is the perpetrator or our economic demise, of course we should seperate liberals the political group from liberals the education system.

That is my belief. From the results of this survey, it is easy to surmise that the educational system is teaching doctrine instead of fact.

It's been doing that since way back when they switched away from the classical educational model to the liberal one so I personally didn't require the article for that when I can see it myself first hand.

I hate absolutes and can't see placing all the blame anywhere. I do place a lot of the blame on the liberal educational system and I've seen nothing logical that better explains why much of the populace support positions that are detrimental to our economy.

It is possible that the exonomic sistuation also developed into something too complex for "directed" evolution when one is dealing from a limited perspective.

I read the word "cute" in the context he used it as derisive. If I misinterpreted his intent, I owe him an apology.

I am most sure it was not ment as a personal jibe.

He equated the report with claims of similar but opposing points of view but has yet back up his claim or provide an example.

He simply pointed out that one can quite literally say the same exact thing about the other side by simple substitution of a few nouns etc. I am assuming that the colleges in question are well known rivals. (Insert conservative for liberal and minus out regulation for de-regulation etc etc)

Regardless, pointing to a flaw elsewhere is not a valid way to address a flaw that is being addressed.

Why not? Socrates did it as a matter of routine if I recall correctly.

I agree that unsupported derisive comments is not a beneficial tactic and should be put aside. It would indeed be beneficial that, if there is an issue with the survey and/or the article that describes it, there will be an honest critique of it and not just a "cute" dismissal.

Why how cute. Does this mean we are all ready to discuss the topic instead of weather or not anyone has offended someone by their choice of adjectives?

[chuck]

...we should seperate liberals the political group from liberals the education system.

It is my contention that the educational system is producing the liberals in the political group.

It's [educational system teaching doctrine instead of fact] been doing that since way back when they switched away from the classical educational model to the liberal one so I personally didn't require the article for that when I can see it myself first hand.

I'm glad you see that. Was there anything in the article that informed you of something that you didn't already know?

It is possible that the exonomic sistuation also developed into something too complex for "directed" evolution when one is dealing from a limited perspective.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that the economy is too complex for basics to be relevant?

He simply pointed out that one can quite literally say the same exact thing about the other side by simple substitution of a few nouns etc.

He made that claim and as yet has not had the opportuinty or inclination to support it.

Regardless, pointing to a flaw elsewhere is not a valid way to address a flaw that is being addressed.

Why not? Socrates did it as a matter of routine if I recall correctly.

So, for example, if one person's addition problem is incorrect, a valid response is to point out that someone else missed a subtraction problem?

Why how cute.

Interpreted as derisive.

Does this mean we are all ready to discuss the topic instead of weather or not anyone has offended someone by their choice of adjectives?

Apparently not, but since we already agree on the major point [the educational system teaches doctrine instead of fact], it probably doesn't matter.

[denuseri]

It is my contention that the educational system is producing the liberals in the political group.

Not as much as the parents do, but it does try.

I'm glad you see that. Was there anything in the article that informed you of something that you didn't already know?

Well I had never heard of then term "economic enlightenment" before and I must admit I still dont see (even after visiting Mr Klein's website I still don't know "exactly what he or his lovely assitsant" think the exact meaning of it is eaither. I do know that the way the questions are worded that they are purposfully being misleading to a certian degree and that the survey in and of itself doesnt take out a large enough crossection to make me believe in its so called results. (In other words it certiantly requires more peer-review)

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that the economy is too complex for basics to be relevant?

No I am saying that the economy as simple as it is in its basic premise of (this for that) has become to complex to be completely understood let alone manipulated with any real degree of perdictability from the limited perspective of those currently claiming to understand it. Like blindfolded old men Smith, Malthus, Keynes, Freedman to Marx...all have only managed to describe or bring forth only a small portion of the elephant they are attempting to feel out.

He made that claim and as yet has not had the opportuinty or inclination to support it.

By what...providing some specific paper by some such other individual? That kind of thing is allready prevelent amongts any pundant of the democratics economic policies isnt it?

So, for example, if one person's addition problem is incorrect, a valid response is to point out that someone else missed a subtraction problem?

If the sumation of the former is dependent upon the sumation of the later, then yes.

Interpreted as derisive.

Good then I made my point about such things.

Apparently not, but since we already agree on the major point [the educational system teaches doctrine instead of fact], it probably doesn't matter.

Its a long running debate in eaither event. Check out the book "The Great Conversation" sometime it directly deals with the subject.

[TantricSoul]

Well I wont admit to being an expert in economics ... or even "economically enlightened," whatever that term is supposed to mean. I suspect the definition is subject to inference and interpretation. Speaking of inference, I have to admit chuck that your reaction to my posts caused me to go back and reread my input, just to make sure I communicated what I was thinking in an sufficient manner.

Thanks to denu's replies (Thank you very much denuseri) I am able to verify that I did effectively communicate my position. She received the message I sent very clearly. Leaving me to conclude that the difference between meaning sent and meaning received isn't necessarily entirely the result of the sending.

I have read this article twice, and still find it to be simplistic, loaded, one sided, and a prime example of attack style journalism. The main point is obvious, as are the politics involved.

This article is not econ 101, its Propaganda 101. That's my opinion, I'm sticking with it, and I am free to post it on these boards in whatever manner I choose sans any personal attacks. Just as you are free to disagree, sans any personal attacks.

"He made that claim and as yet has not had the opportuinty or inclination to support it."

Opportunity? yes
Inclination? no not really ... after all ...
If I point to the sun and say it exists are you going to require me to produce it as evidence? I suspect you know as well as I both sides churn out articles like this one on a regular basis. So what is your purpose to make a point of producing an equivalent propaganda piece from the other side? after all if I were unable to do so what would that prove?.. that the other side does not produce propaganda articles?
I don't think that's the point you were aiming for.

Regardless I will resume my roll of moderation in regards to this thread and leave it for those who wish to hold debate on the actual topic.

Do our representatives or their constituents understand economics well enough to make sound, intelligent, beneficial financial policy decisions?

Respectfully,
Tantric

[Thorne]

Do our representatives or their constituents understand economics well enough to make sound, intelligent, beneficial financial policy decisions?

<Looks around warily at the current economic conditions>
Apparently...NOT!

[chuck]

TantricSoul: Thank you for your thoughtful response. I apologize for the lateness of my response. Though I did post since your post, I had overlooked your post and did not intentionally ignore it.

Well I wont admit to being an expert in economics ... or even "economically enlightened," whatever that term is supposed to mean.

I don't think this discussion is headed in a direction where economic expertize it necessary, but logic would be beneficial. I am curious if you considered the items on the survey before reviewing the answers (I didn't have that opportunity and it's difficult to trust my personal reaction even if I pretend that I had not seen the comments as I read them).

...your reaction to my posts caused me to go back and reread my input, just to make sure I communicated what I was thinking in an sufficient manner.[...snip...][I] conclude that the difference between meaning sent and meaning received isn't necessarily entirely the result of the sending.

Thank you for taking the time to do so. Since much was discussed without your input, let me summarize what I felt you communicated in your initial posts so you can correct any misconceptions I have: Basically, you feel the survey and article were so biased that they were essentially meaningless propaganda. When I responded indicating that I felt it deserved a more consideration, you responded with a repeat of your opinion that it didn't warrant serious consideration. To justify that lack, you offered the fact that actual economics is more sophisticated than was covered in the survey and, secondly, that there were similar articles available from prominent sources that would show conservatives in a bad light. You conclude that instead of taking pot shots at each other, we should discuss more serious issues.

I have read this article twice, and still find it to be simplistic, loaded, one sided, and a prime example of attack style journalism. The main point is obvious, as are the politics involved.

This article is not econ 101, its Propaganda 101. That's my opinion, I'm sticking with it, and I am free to post it on these boards...

Of course. But without supporting logic, facts, or analysis it remains just your opinion. Until I'm familiar with your credentials, objectivity, and/or analytical ability, forgive me if I question the quality of that opinion out of hand.

If I point to the sun and say it exists are you going to require me to produce it as evidence?

Probably not. However, if you pointed out the sun is substantially larger than the moon and I respond that they seem to be pretty much the same as shown by a solar eclipse, I would expect the courtesy of an explanation.

I suspect you know as well as I both sides churn out articles like this one on a regular basis. So what is your purpose to make a point of producing an equivalent propaganda piece from the other side? after all if I were unable to do so what would that prove?.. that the other side does not produce propaganda articles?
I don't think that's the point you were aiming for.

You are right, that is not what I was aiming for. When one offers a "tit for tat" response, several thoughts come to mind. One, the main reason for the comparison is usually to sidetrack the discussion. Two, they may be offering a comparison that are magnitudes of order different (i.e. The Valdez empties its load in San Diego Harbor justified because Joe dumps the oil from his car down the sewer). Three, when making a claim, such as providing an example, but unwilling to do so when requested indicates a lack of credibility to any claims by the poster.

Regardless I will resume my roll of moderation in regards to this thread and leave it for those who wish to hold debate on the actual topic.

Everyone thinks their viewpoint is correct and therefore dead on. Claiming to be moderate is an illusion.

Do our representatives or their constituents understand economics well enough to make sound, intelligent, beneficial financial policy decisions?

Our representatives have the best resources to make such decisions which is why we have representatives. The problem as I see it is that our representatives will promise unsound financial policy decisions (and worse keep their promises) in order to be elected. This is often facilitated by ignorance (or worse indoctrination) of the populace who have to choose their representatives.

My contention is that the news media, the entertainment media, as well as the educational system are all liberal. They are responsible for a huge percentage of the information and misinformation that is being disseminated. This study tends to support that contention. Yes, it is biased. Yes, there is propaganda value to it. But so far, no one has refuted it.

[leo9]

So let me see: the Wall Street Journal set a quiz, found that liberals didn't agree with what the WSJ thought were the right answers, and concluded that this proves liberals are ignorant of economics.

Oddly enough, liberals would probably give "unenlightened" answers to a quiz they set on politics, too. What an ignorant lot we are to disagree with the WSJ!

Now, I'm only an amateur, but I'm pretty sure several of those answers are hotly disputed by economists. But of course the WSJ knows which ones are right. As for Q5, well, of course there can only be one factually right answer to "is this person exploited"!

As Tantric says, cute trick. It certainly worked on you.

[chuck]

As Tantric says, cute trick. It certainly worked on you.

You are misquoting TantricSoul. Regardless, you have not laid the groundwork to give any validity to your rude statement.

[leo9]

You are misquoting TantricSoul.

Tantric wrote:
"What I find cute about this piece is the number of propaganda tools and tactics included within."

I agreed.

Regardless, you have not laid the groundwork to give any validity to your rude statement.

That's because I had no intention of getting into a point-by-point rebuttal, as I could clearly see it would be a waste of effort. The result when others have tried has shown me I was right.

But I'm sorry my rude expression of my opinion hurt your feelings. I'll try to be more considerate.

[chuck]

On a personal level, I've been busy. I apologize to those who posted where I did not respond in a timely manner. Also, this thread has become more confrontational than it needed to be and I fear that I contributed to more than my fair share by my tone and poorly worded posts. My apologies to those I offended.

My tone and mind set occurred because I was irritated by a quick one line dismissal of the article followed by a post that used a rhetorical question as a scold for jibing. I had assumed that scolding was a jibe directed at me for posting "a cute" article. Later, I requested support for the contention the article was nothing but "cute" and used the unfortunate phrase "...logic would be beneficial" when I meant "...an explanation of your logic would be beneficial" There is a world of difference between my post and my intent. Again, I apologize as I had no intention of implying the logic was flawed. I was just trying to point out that there was no logic (or explanation) given. The statement I made to denuseri ("It is also difficult to communicate when one writes one thing but means something else.") applies to me here.

However, there are several less than tactful statements of mine that were directed at comments that I found rude or offensive. For those, I offer no apology. Conversely, if I make a post that someone regards as rude, I ask they too point it out. That will give me an opportunity to clarify, justify, and/or apologize. As in the "logic" statement above, it needed to be clarified and apologized for (there was no justification). I'm grateful to have the opportunity to do so here.

[chuck]

I'll try to be more considerate.

Thank you.

[thir]

So let me see: the Wall Street Journal set a quiz, found that liberals didn't agree with what the WSJ thought were the right answers, and concluded that this proves liberals are ignorant of economics.

Oddly enough, liberals would probably give "unenlightened" answers to a quiz they set on politics, too. What an ignorant lot we are to disagree with the WSJ!

Now, I'm only an amateur, but I'm pretty sure several of those answers are hotly disputed by economists. But of course the WSJ knows which ones are right. As for Q5, well, of course there can only be one factually right answer to "is this person exploited"!

As Tantric says, cute trick.

Economics cannot be disentangled from politics, I'd agree with that any time. Few things can, really, everything has an angle, based on the person's view of the world.

One big problem is that economics are presented as a sort of hard science where you just know what will happen if you do x in y situation. Some things you can say, but there are far too many variables, and far too many things over which you have no control.

Anyway, too many so called economic ideas are pure politics and nothing to do with economical theories.

[steelish]

Almost everyone is "attacking" chuck for this post. Look at it from another point of view;

1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services.
2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago.
3) Rent control leads to housing shortages.
4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly.
5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited,
6) Free trade leads to unemployment.
7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment.
8)Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable.

Personally, I don't think it's a case of one political viewpoint vs another. I think it's more a case of those in political power vs those who aren't. The American government has been regulating and interfering in the private industry for years with both parties taking turns "at the helm", so it is something BOTH sides of the issue are guilty of.

There are times that it is beneficial for the government to regulate something. If it involves the security of the country as a whole, then it should be regulated. The American (federal) government has over-stepped it's boundaries when it comes to power over it's citizens. This has been done very slowly over a great number of years. So slowly, in fact, that many Americans are still unaware of just how much control the government has over their lives.

When I read the original post, I threw out the entire "liberal" base argument, because the Republicans were just as guilty of the same thing when they were in power.

[leo9]

Personally, I don't think it's a case of one political viewpoint vs another. I think it's more a case of those in political power vs those who aren't. The American government has been regulating and interfering in the private industry for years with both parties taking turns "at the helm", so it is something BOTH sides of the issue are guilty of.

And yet right now, the two biggest problems facing America are generally agreed to be caused by the government's failure to regulate. There are still a few irredentists who insist that the credit crash was caused by too much regulation, but I don't think anyone has had the brass neck to blame government interference for the oil spill.

So where was this over-regulation when we needed it?

[chuck]

1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services.
2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago.
3) Rent control leads to housing shortages.
4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly.
5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited,
6) Free trade leads to unemployment.
7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment.
8)Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable.

Thank you for taking the time to find support for the survey issues. The assumption that the interpretation of the statements was correct was never discussed in any detail.

Personally, I don't think it's a case of one political viewpoint vs another. I think it's more a case of those in political power vs those who aren't.

Exploiting misunderstanding the dynamics of economy may be a way of getting and/or keeping political power, but I don't see the where the ascension to power would change their understanding of basics, just the need to recognize them.

...it is something BOTH sides of the issue are guilty of.

That may be true if you are talking about political parties but not so much if you are talking about ideological sides.

When I read the original post, I threw out the entire "liberal" base argument, because the Republicans were just as guilty of the same thing when they were in power.

I don't buy that Republicans are "just" as guilty, but they are by no means immune. That is why many jumped ship to vote for Perot... and we got Clinton.

[TantricSoul]

chuck: thank you for your thoughtful response as well.

I think you may be operating under the misconception that I am trying to convince you of something. Personally I don't care how you interpret this article, call it trash, call it newsworthy, call it the bible if you want. Since I am not trying to sway your opinion, nor am I submitting my opinion to your criteria of debate or acceptance, I find no reason to submit any further substantiating facts or evidence to support my conclusions regarding this thread.

It is my position chuck, that your tea cup is already full and to continue pouring tea would only serve to continue making a mess of the table.

As previously stated I am done contributing to this thread other than a bit of clarification and my roll as moderator. (No its not a illusion of perception, I am the moderator for this section of the forums.)

On that subject you have demonstrated an ability to post thoughtful and intelligent points and rebuttals. Those are definitely welcome and appreciated on these boards.

"... I've been told that my style is a bit caustic" ~ chuck

Yes most definitely so. May I suggest that you tone down the not so subtle insults please? That would go a long way towards others actually considering your remarks about rudeness and jibing attacks seriously.

Examples of stones and glass houses, pots and kettles abound in this thread.
(By more than one member)

To be fair, denu, I would also ask that you please consider taking the high road in any further responses in this thread, as well.

We haven't reached the stage of warnings and apologies yet in my viewpoint but we are standing right on the edge of it.

steelish: Who has been attacked and who is attacking, is certainly a matter of subjective viewpoint.

Thank you very much for helping to steer this thread back into the realm of discussing the topic.

Respectfully,
Tantric