Econ 101

[chuck]

Originally Posted by chuck View Post

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.

It is the job of parents to instill or pass on their philosophy to their children. It is the job of the educational system to educate the children with facts. I object when the educational system teaches dogma and distorts the facts that it presents.

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)

Do you have an illustration to back up your contention that the questions are misleading? For example the question about the definition of monopoly (A company with the largest market share is a monopoly) seems pretty straight forward to me. Even if misleading, why would it tend to mislead liberals more than conservatives? (If it does mislead liberals more than conservatives, then one could conclude that liberals are more easily misled... something I believe but I'm not prepared to back it up). Your reply caused me to go to Gallop's website and from their "Survey Methods" it appears they do take samples from around 3500 to 4000 interviews. (The sample from the article was a little over 4800). Do you require peer-review for all the issues you form an opinion on or do you use it as an excuse to blow off a study that you don't want to consider?

...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.

And from the article, those claiming to understand it when they really don't understand it tend to be liberals.

He made that claim and as yet has not had the opportunity 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?

Hopefully, yes. There are multiple examples daily of pundits, politicians, and entertainers who state unequivocally how stupid conservatives are and they offer no logic or substantiation. Just today, there's a quote where Kathy Griffin on Larry King equates a "strong, conservative person" to "idiot." It is the airheads who get the air time and publicity and I see them all the time. However, I don't often see criticism of conservatives that is backed up by even a fraction of background as what was presented in the article. That is why I asked TantricSoul for an example.

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.

Too bad. That means you are spending your resources to find flaws instead of confronting those that are already known.

Interpreted as derisive.

Good then I made my point about such things.

That too is unfortunate as the point you made is that you believe derisive comments are a desirable way to hold a discussion.

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

Thanks for the reference. I'll keep it in mind, but defer for the moment as we seem to agree on this point anyway.