Survey: Liberals flunk Econ 101

[Dave Schwartz]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282190930932412.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

This is very worth reading. From The Wall Street Journal

Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?
Self-identified liberals and Democrats do badly on questions of basic economics.


...In this case, percentage of conservatives answering incorrectly was 22.3%, very conservatives 17.6% and libertarians 15.7%. But the percentage of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly was 67.6% and liberals 60.1%. The pattern was not an anomaly.


Dave

PS: If I switch to being Libertarian, will I get smarter?

PPS: Do I have to learn the Dewey Decimal System? :lol:

[ArlJim78]

what a shocker.

[mostpost]

Of course, these questions don't really you whether a respondent has a knowledge of economics. They merely tell you whether that respondent agrees with the WSJ take on economcs. They also don't address the issue of whether a policy is necessary for other than economic reasons.


The other questions were: 1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree).
Certainly a professional will include the cost of obtaining his license in the amount he charges for his services, but would you go to an unlicensed doctor or lawyer? If I owned a home I would want any contractor doing work on that home to be licensed and bonded.
I would have been "enlightened" on this one.

2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree).
It probably is, but it is not where it should be based on previous trends. The percentage of increase has dramatically slowed from previous eras.
On this question you can consider me among the "enlightened" ones.

3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree).
Housing shortages means there are less properties available to be rented, yes? Naturally if there are rent controls more people will be able to afford an
apartment and there will be less available apartments. There will also be more people living in apartments. LESS HOMELESS PEOPLE.
If you have no controls, then rents will be higher, less people will be able to afford them and there will be units available.
However, I think that rent controls are viable only in a limited number of circumstances.
On this question I was "unenlighted" at first, but now see that the premise is
correct.

4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree).
Everybody should know that a company has a monopoly when it has an overwhelming market share with virtually no competion.
I am once again enlightened, but that was easy

5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree).
Color me "enlightened" BUT. If you compare the salaries third world workers are paid to what workers in similar, native, jobs are earning I'm sure they are earning more. So the workers are not being exploited. If you compare the third world workers' salaries to what the company would have to pay its workers in the USA they would be much lower. So the compaies are exploiting the economic situation in the third world country while at the same time providing a benefit to the workers.

6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree).
Very much "unelightened" on this one. How can it be otherwise? If a Mexican firm can pay its workers $1.25/hr to make sombreroes and it doesn't have to pay a tariff to export the sombreroes to the United States then how can an American sombrero manufacturer compete. Result? Lost jobs in the USA.



7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree).
Once again I am "unenlightened" and proud of it.
Here are the april 2010 unemployment rates for all the states. I have marked the right to work states with an "R" before the state names. There are 23 right to work states. There are 27 union states. Nine of the twenty seven unions states have unemployment rates in excess of the national average (9.7%). That is 33.3%. Eight of the twenty three right to work states have unemployment rates in excess of the national average. That is 34.8%.

We should also consider that six of the right to work states are sparsely populated rural states which would not be affected by unemployment as much as a manufacturing state. (Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming.) If we eliminate these states, 47% of right to work states have unemployment rates higher than the national average.
R Alabama
11.0%(p) in Apr 2010

Historical Data

Alaska
8.4%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

R Arizona
9.5%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

R Arkansas
7.8%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

California
12.6%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

Colorado
8.0%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

Connecticut
9.0%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

Delaware
9.0%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

D.C.
11.0%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

R Florida
12.0%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

R Georgia
10.4%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

Hawaii
6.7%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

R Idaho
9.1%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

Illinois
11.2%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

Indiana
10.0%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

R Iowa
6.9%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

R Kansas
6.5%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

Kentucky
10.6%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

R Louisiana
6.7%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

Maine
8.1%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

Maryland
7.5%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

Massachusetts
9.2%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

Michigan
14.0%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

Minnesota
7.2%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

R Mississippi
11.5%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

Missouri
9.4%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

Montana
7.1%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

R Nebraska
5.0%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

R Nevada
13.7%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

New Hampshire
6.7%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

New Jersey
9.8%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

New Mexico
8.7%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

New York
8.4%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

R North Carolina
10.8%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

R North Dakota
3.8%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

Ohio
10.9%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

R Oklahoma
6.6%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

Oregon
10.6%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

Pennsylvania
9.0%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

Puerto Rico Not a state
17.2%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

Rhode Island
12.5%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

R South Carolina
11.6%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

R South Dakota
4.7%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

R Tennessee
10.5%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

R Texas
8.3%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

R Utah
7.3%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

Vermont
6.4%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

R Virginia
7.2%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

Washington
9.2%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

West Virginia
9.2%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

Wisconsin
8.5%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

R Wyoming
7.1%(p) in Apr 2010
Historical Data

p- preliminary



Subscribe
Subscribe to receive free BLS Economic News Release email.

[Ocala Mike]

mostpost, don't you know that you're not supposed to post facts on here, only opinions?

Anyway, I would have "passed" Econ 101, and would have "aced" Keynsian Economics (they don't teach that any more, I guess).


Ocala Mike

[bigmack]

If a Mexican firm can pay its workers $1.25/hr to make sombreroes and it doesn't have to pay a tariff to export the sombreroes to the United States then how can an American sombrero manufacturer compete.
Let's assume you're brilliant in economics. Let's assume a 5th grader knows how to spell sombrero. Like tomato, there ain't no e; just ask D.Quayle.

Therefore, the truth still stands. Self-identified liberals take a back seat to 5th graders in intellect.

Touché.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_z_iEGi9WUs8/S7O-_cxLVnI/AAAAAAAAAJE/RGHAQARqDzA/s1600/sombrero-420x288.jpg

[mostpost]

Let's assume you're brilliant in economics. Let's assume a 5th grader knows how to spell sombrero. Like tomato, there ain't no e; just ask D.Quayle.

Therefore, the truth still stands. Self-identified liberals take a back seat to 5th graders in intellect.

Touché.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_z_iEGi9WUs8/S7O-_cxLVnI/AAAAAAAAAJE/RGHAQARqDzA/s1600/sombrero-420x288.jpg
You're right there is no e". I thought it was the same as heroes. Now I'm smarter than I was. Thanks :)

[Dave Schwartz]

What I find most interesting is the way liberals react to this article.

I have shown it to three liberals.

Two of them wanted to argue that most of the answers were wrong. LOL - There is, of course, nothing to argue about, no matter how difficult Mostie wants to make it.

The third one wanted to explain why each question had no "real" answer. Just like IQ tests, is what he said.

Right. a borderline moron and an MIT grad have the same intelligence because the tests are not multicultural.

[George Sands]

What I find most interesting is the way liberals react to this article.

I have shown it to three liberals.

Remind me not to buy your par times.

[Dave Schwartz]

Mr. Sands,

Ah, you must be one of those open-minded, free-speech liberals. You know... the ones that think free speech is a really good idea provided that the speeches all agree with you.


Dave Schwartz

PS: Seems I have missed your par orders all these years and will continue to do so.

[George Sands]

I was making a sample-size joke, Dave.

[Dave Schwartz]

Guess I missed it.

[Tom]

mostie - you have to answer the questions, not re-write them! :lol:

Mac, no hat tipping! :eek:
That reminds of Senor Wences at the beach! Say hello to my little friend!

[PaceAdvantage]

mostpost, don't you know that you're not supposed to post facts on here, only opinions?My my...a quick study among us...

[DJofSD]

I must have missed it. When did Mostie win the Nobel price in economics?

[PhantomOnTour]

A report or study has been done and posted on the PA site.
Ready...set...argue!

[Rook]

Mostie is not only ignorant in politics but also in math. If he knew how to calculate an average, using his own data, he would have discovered that his union paradises have an average unemployment of 9.5%, while the free states are at 8.4%.

Thanks for proving the point of about Liberals' ignorance Mostie!:lol:

[jballscalls]

Thanks for proving the point of about Liberals' ignorance Mostie!:lol:

so one guy means that all liberals are stupid? seems a bit of a generalization

[Rook]

so one guy means that all liberals are stupid? seems a bit of a generalization

You are right. It was the WSJ that proved they were stupid about economics and Mostie merely reinforced the view.

[Dave Schwartz]

JB,

IMHO, the message from the original link was not meant to say that "all liberals are stupid." The message is that many liberals have no grasp on economic reality.

Again, IMHO, if you look at the group of all liberals, I think you will find that the younger liberals are the ones who need the most education. (Ironically, many of them are either in college or were in college recently.)

I recall having a conversation with my (then) teenage son on the topic of illegal immigration. He said, "We live in a great country. Why can't we just let everyone in?" No matter how I tried to explain it to him, he didn't get it.

Finally, I said, "You have to pay your car insurance, right?"

"Yes."

"Can you afford to pay for someone else's car insurance?"

"No!"

"Well, then, imagine if the cost of car insurance was to come with a requirement that you had to pay for someone else's car insurance, someone who did not have the legal right to drive. Since you can't afford it, you don't get to drive but they do. Are you alright with that?"

He said that he wasn't but still said, "There has to be another way."

That is the biggest challenge the young liberal faces in coming to maturity. I explained that sometimes there just isn't another way. As an immature person/liberal he dismissed the conversation by saying, "Well, there just has to be."

It is that "illogic" that must be outgrown. IMHO, as most liberals grow they learn that some things are NOT possible simply by saying "there must be a way." If there is a way, then find it! Then go ahead with the program.

The immature liberal says, "We have to do it anyway." This is why they flunk Econ 101.

California is an example of a state run by immature liberals.





BTW, personally, I am not really a conservative. I am a moderate.

I mean, really... how can anyone not believe in social programs? I think that even most conservatives like the idea of social programs. It is just that the ones we have never seem to address the real issues. They just throw money at the problems.

[DJofSD]

You are right. It was the WSJ that proved they were stupid about economics and Mostie merely reinforced the view.
Score: Rook 1, others 0.

[boxcar]

JB,

IMHO, the message from the original link was not meant to say that "all liberals are stupid." The message is that many liberals have no grasp on economic reality.

Again, IMHO, if you look at the group of all liberals, I think you will find that the younger liberals are the ones who need the most education. (Ironically, many of them are either in college or were in college recently.)

I recall having a conversation with my (then) teenage son on the topic of illegal immigration. He said, "We live in a great country. Why can't we just let everyone in?" No matter how I tried to explain it to him, he didn't get it.

Finally, I said, "You have to pay your car insurance, right?"

"Yes."

"Can you afford to pay for someone else's car insurance?"

"No!"

"Well, then, imagine if the cost of car insurance was to come with a requirement that you had to pay for someone else's car insurance, someone who did not have the legal right to drive. Since you can't afford it, you don't get to drive but they do. Are you alright with that?"

He said that he wasn't but still said, "There has to be another way."

That is the biggest challenge the young liberal faces in coming to maturity. I explained that sometimes there just isn't another way. As an immature person/liberal he dismissed the conversation by saying, "Well, there just has to be."

It is that "illogic" that must be outgrown. IMHO, as most liberals grow they learn that some things are NOT possible simply by saying "there must be a way." If there is a way, then find it! Then go ahead with the program.

The immature liberal says, "We have to do it anyway." This is why they flunk Econ 101.

California is an example of a state run by immature liberals.





BTW, personally, I am not really a conservative. I am a moderate.

I mean, really... how can anyone not believe in social programs? I think that even most conservatives like the idea of social programs. It is just that the ones we have never seem to address the real issues. They just throw money at the problems.

Your story, Dave, reminds me of a poll that was taken during the health care reform debate. Many young people were all for it...up until the time, that is, that they learned they would be punished for not having it -- that either they would be fined or even sent to prison. They were shocked to find this out. They, too, had to have been thinking that "require" must have another meaning. :rolleyes:

When there's such a huge disconnect between so many people and reality as we all know it, we are in very real danger of losing our culture of freedom because these kinds of people will insist on pursuing political and economic alternatives that have no ground in reality. The ground will be in nothing more than whims, fancies and wishful thinking.

Boxcar

[ddog]

"Since you can't afford it, you don't get to drive but they do. Are you alright with that?"

REALLY NOW............... :faint:



But of course as any 5th grader would KNOW, this assumes the state has a right to force you to have insurance and that you have a right to drive.

Neither are/should be true.

There is nothing to prove that you should insure OR NOT as YOU see fit for your own risk.

It's the same with the HC deal, the state should not force you or support YOU in your choice of what level of insurance to have for YOUR own risk tolerance.

It boils down to the nanny state is SO ingrained in this country that most can't even tell they are blind followers of same , on either side.

The only thing this thread shows is that the 5th grade level of the quiz is about the level of the normal reader of said rag.

[mostpost]

Mostie is not only ignorant in politics but also in math. If he knew how to calculate an average, using his own data, he would have discovered that his union paradises have an average unemployment of 9.5%, while the free states are at 8.4%.

Thanks for proving the point of about Liberals' ignorance Mostie!:lol:
You can also prove that the union states have more unemployment in absolute terms than the right to work state, since their population is much greater. The right to work states are primarily southern and western agrarian states. It would stand to reason that they would have lower unemployment than the heavily industrialized northern states.
And please, don't call them "free" states. Free to do what? Work for less?

Lest anyone be confused the above was posted by Rook, not by Rookies, who is much smarter. :lol: :lol:

[Dave Schwartz]

Dog,

Did you really think my post was about insurance?


Dave

[Rook]

Y=
And please, don't call them "free" states. Free to do what? Work for less?


Free from union control and free from liberal pinheads.

[ddog]

Dog,

Did you really think my post was about insurance?


Dave


No , did you really think the survey was about economics?

;)


You realize how many pages could be taken on just the first question , as to the econ part of it?
Even the extra cost of a cert as opposed to no cert is not a slam dunk.

[prospector]

prime example of liberal stupidity..
jesse jackson's calling for a boycott on all bp gas stations in the United States..the person on the business channel pointed out to him that bp no longer owns any stations..these were all sold to mom and pop type people and these are the ones who will get hurt with a boycott...jackson's answer...the government can give a small bailout to those people..
fing idiot..

[mostpost]

Last night I received a PM from someone who no longer posts in off-topic. He didn't say I should not mention his name, but I think he wants his privacy preserved so I will honor his wishes. He sent me the following link.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/are-you-smarter-than-george-mason.html
Now you are all going to be saying (whining actually) that Nate Silver is a liberal yada yada, so I'm not even going to quote from his article. However, he does link to the original study which was conducted by George Mason University's Daniel Klein and Zogby International's Zeljka Buturovic.
The following is a copy of the opening paragraph of their study, written by Klein and Buturvic.
We present results of a December 2008 Zogby International nationwide
survey of American adults, with 4,835 respondents. We gauge economic en-
lightenment based on responses to eight economic questions. A number of con-
troversial interpretive issues attend our measure, including: (1) our designation of
enlightened answers; (2) an asymmetry in sometimes challenging leftist mentalities
without ever specifically challenging conservative and libertarian mentalities; (3)
our simple 8-question test is merely a baseline and does not gauge the heights of
economic enlightenment; and (4) a concern about response bias—namely, that less
intelligent people would be less likely to participate in the survey.
We see in (1) that Klein and Butrovic admit that their decision of what is an enlightened answer is arbitrary.
In (2) we see that their economic opinion is biased toward the conservative and libertarian side.
regarding (3) the Silver article states that 16 questions were originally asked but only eight were arbitrarily selected for the study.
All of this indicates that Klein and Butrovic had a result in mind and "cooked" the study to confirm that result.

Many thanks to the mystery poster for his link.

[ddog]

prime example of liberal stupidity..
jesse jackson's calling for a boycott on all bp gas stations in the United States..the person on the business channel pointed out to him that bp no longer owns any stations..these were all sold to mom and pop type people and these are the ones who will get hurt with a boycott...jackson's answer...the government can give a small bailout to those people..
fing idiot..


jesse is a scum sucking moneygrubbing bottom feeding lowlife pos and a damn fool.

GO away , you clown, just go away.

They always shoot the wrong dudes.


In about a year he will be leading a group of former BP station owners protesting that the gvt killed them and there were not enough of a "rainbow" among the owners.


p.s. even I won't tar a normal lib with the jesse badge of shame.
As boxcar points out , discrimination is valuable.

p.p.s. - as usual a boycott of BP stations, even if THEY OWNED AND RAN ALL OF THEM would not help him much, the fuel would just be SOLD and used by another outlet. Happens all the time now.

[mostpost]

prime example of liberal stupidity..
jesse jackson's calling for a boycott on all bp gas stations in the United States..the person on the business channel pointed out to him that bp no longer owns any stations..these were all sold to mom and pop type people and these are the ones who will get hurt with a boycott...jackson's answer...the government can give a small bailout to those people..
fing idiot..
I am a liberal (surprise, surprise) and I agree that is a dumb idea.
I will continue to patronize my local BP which is run by good, hard working people.

[bigmack]

jesse is a scum sucking moneygrubbing bottom feeding lowlife pos and a damn fool.
GO away , you clown, just go away.
They always shoot the wrong dudes.
Boingo. You're on a roll today.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/21434833.gif

[ddog]

always on a roll, man, always.


bowl of cherries and all that.
:D

[BenDiesel26]

We see in (1) that Klein and Butrovic admit that their decision of what is an enlightened answer is arbitrary.
In (2) we see that their economic opinion is biased toward the conservative and libertarian side.
regarding (3) the Silver article states that 16 questions were originally asked but only eight were arbitrarily selected for the study.
All of this indicates that Klein and Butrovic had a result in mind and "cooked" the study to confirm that result.

Many thanks to the mystery poster for his link.

Wrong on many counts:

In (1), they do not admit at all that their decision of what an enlightened answer is is arbitrary. They are merely stating that some will disagree. Arbitrary, nowhere close. Read it again.

In (2), they are not saying they have a biased opinion. They are saying the questions they asked were more likely to be answered wrongly by liberals. This certainly would bias the the conclusion that the study means conservatives are smarter than liberals. However, the liberals were still wrong in their answers. It just so happened to be questions dealing with issues in which liberals are usually wrong or have misconceptions. Just like there are issues in which conservatives will be wrong, specifically the authors mention drug prohibition. The statement has nothing to do with the authors' opinions. Read it again.

In (3), again there you go with "arbitrarily." The eight were not arbitrarily selected. Look up arbitrary in the dictionary please. The remaining 8 were thrown out based on ambiguity or because the questions are "too vague or narrowly focused." Tell me you don't agree with the authors after reading the questions. Here are the other questions:

1. Poverty causes crime.
2. Business contracts benefit all parties.
3. Private property protections primarily benefit the well-off.
4. More often than not, employers who discriminate in employee hiring will be punished by the market.
5. In the USA, more often than not, rich people were born rich.
6. Consumption grows the economy.
7. Economic development makes things more affordable.
8. Foreign aid helps economic growth of recipient countries.

Now, did they omit these to come to their own conclusions. I think its obvious the questions are a lot more susceptible to interpretation than the eight used. No doubt about it. But if you don't, the authors make all of their data available online. I don't feel like decoding the spreadsheet. Feel free to do it for yourself though. It would be interesting.

You didn't mention (4), which states the concern that had everybody answered, the incorrect responses could have increased based on the non-willingness of less intelligent people to actually answer.

[Valuist]

mostpost, don't you know that you're not supposed to post facts on here, only opinions?

Anyway, I would have "passed" Econ 101, and would have "aced" Keynsian Economics (they don't teach that any more, I guess).


Ocala Mike

That great Keynesian economics with its never ending spending. How did that stimulus work for the country? According to Obama's advisers, unemployment wasn't going to go over 8%. How do you like that Keynesian nonsense now?

[BluegrassProf]

1. Poverty causes crime.Ha! Every single liberal would've answered yes to this question, and every single one would've been wrong.

Sure, poverty is often a contributing factor in criminality, but it certainly doesn't cause crime. There are a whole heck of a lot of poor noncriminals out there.

I'm sure the above distinction is what made them ultimately omit the question, but heck if it isn't a good one to draw a political/ideological line.

[kenwoodall2]

Well, I got a perfect score!! ""not sure," which we do not count as incorrect""!LOL!!
Does that mean I have to move to the right of moderate?

[Tom]

That great Keynesian economics with its never ending spending. How did that stimulus work for the country? According to Obama's advisers, unemployment wasn't going to go over 8%. How do you like that Keynesian nonsense now?

See, here is where the confusion is coming from. Ovomit does not use Keynesian economics....he uses Kenyan Economics.

[bigmack]

poverty is often a contributing factor in criminality, but it certainly doesn't cause crime.
Does booze cause crime? Do drugs? How could that be?

Poverty doesn't stand a chance of having anything to do with crime. :rolleyes:

Semantics aside. Or is this about semantics?

[BluegrassProf]

Semantics aside. Or is this about semantics?In a sense...it's causation vs correlation.

It's like saying warm weather causes certain types of crime, which of course isn't true: there's a correlational link (more robberies in the summer than in the winter...shocking!), but not a causal one.

Same goes for liquor and alcohol: there's often a correlation to criminality in that those that commit crimes are often users, but the substances rarely cause criminality in and of themselves (ex: the vast majority of drug users don't commit other sorts of crime - other than drug use/possession/sales, that is, obviously - and though we often see crimes committed to, for example, feed drug habits, those are also not caused by the drugs themselves but rather by the social context in which a user exists). Correlation, not causation.

Same goes for alcohol use, to an even larger extent. We all know a gazillion noncriminal drinkers. That said, there's often a correlation....example: there was a study done in the 90's that looked at the availability of malt liquor in high-crime areas, and concluded that because there was more available in those areas, it must have a causal relationship to crime. This study was not done by criminologists, obviously: they never considered the notion that those groups that tend to engage in criminal activity - you know exactly who I'm talking about - tend to drink malt liquor, not the other way 'round. Fine white wines like Colt 45. On fancier nights, something in an aged red...like, say, Mad Dog 20/20.

Yikles...I'm veering way off-topic - apologies. Just food for thought.

[bigmack]

That said, there's often a correlation....example: there was a study done in the 90's that looked at the availability of malt liquor in high-crime areas, and concluded that because there was more available in those areas, it must have a causal relationship to crime. This study was not done by criminologists, obviously: they never considered the notion that those groups that tend to engage in criminal activity - you know exactly who I'm talking about - tend to drink malt liquor, not the other way 'round.
I hear that. Shazzam, I'm Swedish & Irish. When I down Absolut & Guinness I become nuts. Is that what you mean? :rolleyes:

I love that game.

Match the beverage to the ethnic grouping. :ThmbUp:

[Dave Schwartz]

See, here is where the confusion is coming from. Ovomit does not use Keynesian economics....he uses Kenyan Economics.

Actually, he is using Zimbabwe economics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo4BAOZGvxU&NR=1

[mostpost]

That great Keynesian economics with its never ending spending. How did that stimulus work for the country? According to Obama's advisers, unemployment wasn't going to go over 8%. How do you like that Keynesian nonsense now?
The stimulus is working fairly well, thank you. At the end of the Bush years we were losing over 500,000 jobs a month. We are now creating jobs. Other economic numbers are up. Unemployment numbers went higher than anticipated because nobody knew how bad the situation really was.

As to the value of Keynesian economics as opposed to the free market economics advocated by Milton Friedman and his disciples, it is no contest.
From 1951 to 1981 when we were basically under Keynesian economic our national debt increased 290%. From 1981 to the end of 2008, under free market, minimal (or no) regulation the national debt increased 972%.

Ocala Mike, an interesting and informative read on the consequences of Freidmanomics in other countries is Naomi Klein's book "The Shock Doctrine".
In countries likd Chile, Argentina, Bolivia etc. the economy was forcibly transformed to follow the tenets of Freidmanomics. Dissent was repressed, people were imprisoned, tortured and even killed. The change was universally successful........for the wealthy.......for everyone else, not so much. :eek: :eek:

[JustRalph]

Mostie, you are so out of touch..............

[GameTheory]

As to the value of Keynesian economics as opposed to the free market economics advocated by Milton Friedman and his disciples, it is no contest.
From 1951 to 1981 when we were basically under Keynesian economic our national debt increased 290%. From 1981 to the end of 2008, under free market, minimal (or no) regulation the national debt increased 972%.
We were not under a "free market" during either of those periods. As long as we have a federal bank at the heart of the system (what could be a bigger intervention than that?) a free market or anything close to it is not a possibility. As long as we have tax policies and laws pushing money into favored areas and suffocating others a free market or anything close to it is not a possibility.

[Dave Schwartz]

GT,


:ThmbUp:

[chickenhead]

From personally conducted yet unpublished studies -- Mad Dog 20/20 will indeed bump anyones personal crime rate up a few percentage points, approaching and often surpassing their personal all-time highs. Maybe only inherent hooligans drink MD 20/20 or the like, but hooliganism I think tends to be more acute with a belly full of "Red Grape" flavor booze. Really, how couldn't it.

Safe to say it probably has a deleterious effect on understanding of economics, as well.

I spent some time in Cameroon -- as poor and wide open as you can find. But it wasn't scary, and the crime rate was not bad at all. Everyone was dirt poor, but they all worked all day, and got home tired. They didn't have any time for hooliganism or MD 20/20. I think idleness coupled with a dab of self loathing and desperation cause crime.

[kenwoodall2]

Margin of profit and markup!

[mostpost]

Mostie, you are so out of touch..............
Ralphie, because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them out of touch. It makes them right. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[bigmack]

Ralphie, because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them out of touch. It makes them right.
I am a big fan of your portrayal of Arthur Kirkland in the film ...And Justice for All

Well done counselor.

Z48Y0sQzxxs