The most important part is it's the Joe Schmos that vote them in.

 

And thank God we live in a country where that's allowed to happen. Rather than just the privileged, perfect (got this from another thread:D) few.

And thank God we live in a country where that's allowed to happen. Rather than just the privileged, perfect (got this from another thread:D) few.

I totally agree, I wouldn't have it any other way. Still not very encouraging that they are that inept.

Of course, one could look at their “economics test” and realize that it was fairly ridiculous and its debatable and ambiguous questions were designed to elicit strong feelings from conservatives. Daniel Klein admits as much, writing that his colleague felt that previous economic-based questions were “too narrowly factual, too dry in a textbook way” thus new questions needed to be more abstract. He also adds “To be sure, none of the eight questions specifically challenge the political sensibilities of conservatives and libertarians,” which, of course, is crucial considering the room for debate each question holds.

 

For instance, respondents were asked whether they strongly agree, agree, are not sure, disagree, or strongly disagree with the statement “Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited.” The authors consider those who agree with that statement fools and failures of basic economics. This is absurd as there is no correct answer to that question. However, there is one thing the authors did count on, and that is that liberals and progressives would have a lower threshold for what they consider exploitation while conservatives would be more likely to dismiss it or rationalize any evidence of exploitation as anomalous. As an ardent proponent of free trade myself, I cannot disagree with that statement outright, it is too simple. This is all to say that the questions are far from black and white, are, for the most part, quite debatable, and play to conservative conceptions, thus the authors coding of a definitive right and wrong answer is specious, at best.

 

Had the survey asked respondents their agreement with statements like “Lowering taxes increases governmental revenues” and coded those who agree as wrong, conservatives would have been deemed the “unenlightened” group on economics. It is nonsensical to suggest lowering taxes would raise revenues, but it is too vague to be absolute. Conservatives are overly sympathetic to those situations where revenue could increase and would thus be just as quick to agree with that statement as liberals were to many of those in this editorial. If the survey had been eight questions similarly crafted to the one I just devised and conservatives labeled “failures” there would be a riot of condemnation on this board.

What about the other questions? The first housing question mentioned in the article was pretty basic, yet 67% from the left missed it? I agree as to the one question you pointed out. Most seemed pretty straightforward and basic.

Of course, one could look at their “economics test” and realize that it was fairly ridiculous and its debatable and ambiguous questions were designed to elicit strong feelings from conservatives. Daniel Klein admits as much, writing that his colleague felt that previous economic-based questions were “too narrowly factual, too dry in a textbook way” thus new questions needed to be more abstract. He also adds “To be sure, none of the eight questions specifically challenge the political sensibilities of conservatives and libertarians,” which, of course, is crucial considering the room for debate each question holds.

 

For instance, respondents were asked whether they strongly agree, agree, are not sure, disagree, or strongly disagree with the statement “Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited.” The authors consider those who agree with that statement fools and failures of basic economics. This is absurd as there is no correct answer to that question. However, there is one thing the authors did count on, and that is that liberals and progressives would have a lower threshold for what they consider exploitation while conservatives would be more likely to dismiss it or rationalize any evidence of exploitation as anomalous. As an ardent proponent of free trade myself, I cannot disagree with that statement outright, it is too simple. This is all to say that the questions are far from black and white, are, for the most part, quite debatable, and play to conservative conceptions, thus the authors coding of a definitive right and wrong answer is specious, at best.

 

Had the survey asked respondents their agreement with statements like “Lowering taxes increases governmental revenues” and coded those who agree as wrong, conservatives would have been deemed the “unenlightened” group on economics. It is nonsensical to suggest lowering taxes would raise revenues, but it is too vague to be absolute. Conservatives are overly sympathetic to those situations where revenue could increase and would thus be just as quick to agree with that statement as liberals were to many of those in this editorial. If the survey had been eight questions similarly crafted to the one I just devised and conservatives labeled “failures” there would be a riot of condemnation on this board.

 

To paraphrase Paul Harvey, and now the rest of the story. Perhaps a completely different demographic could be regarded as failures regarding understanding basic economics.

 

On the bolded, in the red corner...

What about the other questions? The first housing question mentioned in the article was pretty basic, yet 67% from the left missed it? I agree as to the one question you pointed out. Most seemed pretty straightforward and basic.

 

It's not straightforward. It's subjective and vague, like the rest. The only question that lacks a controversial answer was the question on market share and monopolies.

 

Here's a more thorough debunking of the methodology:

 

Here's what Klein and Buturovic did. They took a survey using one of Zogby's internet panels, which is by far the worst polling instrument that they could have selected. The panel was not weighted and was not in balance. For example, McCain led Obama 49-43 among respondents to the survey, even though roughly the opposite outcome was observed in the actual election -- and only about 4 percent of the respondents were Hispanic and only 39 percent were female. Then they asked 16 "questions of basic economics", as the Journal's sub-head describes them, and arbitrarily included eight of them in their analysis but threw the other eight out.

 

If you were expecting fifth grade questions about supply and demand, you'd be wrong. Let me just say: I come at this as a University of Chicago economics graduate who indeed disagrees with the liberal orthodoxy on many economic matters. But questions such as "[Does] poverty cause crime?", which was one of the questions that Klein and Buturovic excluded without explanation, are more like Zen meditations than matters of basic economics.

Liberals don't understand much of anything.

Liberals don't understand much of anything.

 

How so?

It's not straightforward. It's subjective and vague, like the rest. The only question that lacks a controversial answer was the question on market share and monopolies.

 

Here's a more thorough debunking of the methodology:

 

Here's what Klein and Buturovic did. They took a survey using one of Zogby's internet panels, which is by far the worst polling instrument that they could have selected. The panel was not weighted and was not in balance. For example, McCain led Obama 49-43 among respondents to the survey, even though roughly the opposite outcome was observed in the actual election -- and only about 4 percent of the respondents were Hispanic and only 39 percent were female. Then they asked 16 "questions of basic economics", as the Journal's sub-head describes them, and arbitrarily included eight of them in their analysis but threw the other eight out.

 

If you were expecting fifth grade questions about supply and demand, you'd be wrong. Let me just say: I come at this as a University of Chicago economics graduate who indeed disagrees with the liberal orthodoxy on many economic matters. But questions such as "[Does] poverty cause crime?", which was one of the questions that Klein and Buturovic excluded without explanation, are more like Zen meditations than matters of basic economics.

 

"Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable." Subjective and vague???? You have got to be kidding me. Very basic economics.

Liberals don't understand much of anything.

 

I understand a really, really broad brush when I see one.

"Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable." Subjective and vague???? You have got to be kidding me. Very basic economics.

 

Is there a specific, indisputable definition of "restrictions on housing development"? Just about anything can be read into that. It could range from the beneficial to the innocuous to the austere. I'm not trying to be onerous here, I'm saying its open to interpretation and rationalization. Liberals are going to cling to caveats or rationalize it to fit their view of economic policy and conservatives are going to do the same. These questions should elicit a lengthy response from any respondent, yet they demand a black and white, partisan response, and only one black and white, partisan response is considered correct. I think it's silly social science.

Is there a specific, indisputable definition of "restrictions on housing development"? Just about anything can be read into that. It could range from the beneficial to the innocuous to the austere. I'm not trying to be onerous here, I'm saying its open to interpretation and rationalization. Liberals are going to cling to caveats or rationalize it to fit their view of economic policy and conservatives are going to do the same. These questions should elicit a lengthy response from any respondent, yet they demand a black and white, partisan response, and only one black and white, partisan response is considered correct. I think it's silly social science.

 

Maybe it's language, not economics, that is problematic. You're really stretching here Habib.

Maybe it's language, not economics, that is problematic. You're really stretching here Habib.

 

Do you think you and I would have the same definition of "restrictions on housing development" if asked and if they weren't the same one of us would be wrong?

I hate to dig up an old thread, but I stumbled into this piece by the original author that I thought was relevant here: I Was Wrong, and So Are You

I hate to dig up an old thread, but I stumbled into this piece by the original author that I thought was relevant here: I Was Wrong, and So Are You

 

Well, well. It will be interesting to see if, to use wording from the article, this is as happily disseminated across the right-wing blogosphere as the first study.