Econ 101

[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.