Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Academic research is peer-reviewed and heavily critiqued before published. It's hardly just a single person's point of view. Research with political or financial motives is not published in academic journals.
But your quote from the OP is a perfect representation of how these mouth breathers think. We're only a good 10 to 15 years away from a full-blown Idiocracy, I fear. "The Voice" will be replaced by "Ow! My Balls!" in less than two decades. Mark my words.
But your quote from the OP is a perfect representation of how these mouth breathers think. We're only a good 10 to 15 years away from a full-blown Idiocracy, I fear. "The Voice" will be replaced by "Ow! My Balls!" in less than two decades. Mark my words.
Stupidity, idiocracy and ignorance has always existed.
Why does education matter for anything? I'll put my money on the guy who studied for 4+ years straight, and then spent a few decades working in the field.
Concerning supply-side, you don't need to be an economist to predict what would happen in that scenario. It didn't work in the 80s, and would be even less likely to work now. That's assuming that your goal is increased productivity and prosperity for the great majority of citizens. If you wish for the top 0.1% to get richer, it will work great.
Your view is a bit too simplistic. Even if a person believes that they want prosperity for the majority of citizens, they differ with you in ways to go about it. In other words, supply side economics is up for interpretation. You will in fact find fewer people who oppose your purpose than people who oppose your method.
Let me ask you this, what is a good baseball player and a bad one? The good one bats over .300 (still "wrong" 7 out of 10 times) while the bad player bats .200 and is wrong 8 out of 10 times.
A good economist can have a personal opinion. However, they don't let politics cloud their judgement. They present the data in the most holistic way they can, even if some of the data goes against any personal bias they may have. It's not possible to get it "right" all the time, because economics is an extremely complicated subject and in the end, it's just not possible to accurately predict how every single input will affect the final result. But you can certainly still be objective. Most people who label others as liberals or conservatives have long ago lost that ability however.
Your second statement is a generalization, and a false one at that. You want to poll 10 different people who know nothing about the subject at hand, yes, you're liable to get 10 different answers. But poll 10 economists and you will get far more agreement on what the data means. The difference these days boils down to personal politics unfortunately. Understand that among economists, the ones you generally see on tv as talking heads for a political party... those are hack economists for the most part, who have an agenda to push.
I disagree. The analogy of baseball players is a bad one. There are Marxist economists, neoliberal economists, socialist economists, consen sgive economists, etc. they can all be very educated and good at research methodology. Even if they reach the same research findings, their recommendations can vary greatly. I think there is enough confusion in America regarding the difference between education and decisions.
First, people know something. Then, they interprete it. And after all that, they make a decision on what to do.
A person may have had a bad experience with people of my ethnicity. And they have since decided to treat me badly and in hostility. You may be an expert of racism, and know how to conceal their own. They can educate others about racism, but that does not prevent them from being racist toward me. Because it's a conscious, intentional, and strategic decision. It also doesn't reduce that persons expertise on racism. In fact, they understand it so well that they may practice it skillfully and get away from it. They know the risks, the loopholes, and laws so well that they can protect themselves while advancing racism toward a person with precision and damage that achieves their measureable goals.
Who would you trust your retirement investment with? (let's say you got $1,000,000 saved)
A liberal with a a Phd in Economics
or a conservative with a high school education that is a strong supporter of supply side economics?
I guarantee 99% of people would trust their retirement money to the liberal with the Phd
But you are comparing a well educated liberal versus a less educated conservative. If you go to some of the business and engineering schools, a lot of their faculty are conservative.
Not to mention that a high school graduate will not be working as a financial advisor.
And the liberal phd may give you the same advice on investment. That is different than general economic views. What makes you think that liberals give absolutely different views on investment just because of their political views. A good liberal football player understands the rules the same way as a good conservative football player.
Last but not least, most people are in the middle. You can find liberals with conservative views and conservatives who have varied views too. The absolute liberal and absolute conservative are not the norm. And why would people pick between two oddest apples?
Poor districts alone do not make them bad as we have seen from past. They often tho suffer more from parents not caring now days really. A nearby city has well financed schools by industrial tax base but are very poor performing. A lot of corruption charges have just been filed on many of the administration and state took over control. Corruption seems to find a home in high crime areas.
Why do you liberals treat education as being at all important in something like economics???
I'm sorry, but is this a joke? You don't think economists need to be educated in economics (not to mention a whole host of other subjects)? I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Let me guess: you vote for president based on who you want to have a beer with, too?
This is hysterical! The OP seems to have a spelling problem but I think his question is valid.
A Swedish high school teacher told me that he objected to the idea of making accounting mandatory in the schools on the grounds that the math would make Capitalism seem logical to the students. I was mind blown!
But I do find it curious that the right wingers don't mention the idea either.
The main strategy that does not seem to get mentioned in economics game theory is: "keep all of the pawns as ignorant as possible." Wouldn't the system still be capitalism if everyone understood accounting? There just might not be as many suckers that are easy to rip off.
The smartest guys in the room are very evident to most. I ignore all those type claims and judge on what is real .By the way I am just so-so not the smartest guy by any stretch, But it doesn't mean they can sell me a bridge either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
