Are you smarter than a liberal?

[Darwin333]

Then there are the conservatives who are swinging further into an ideology that damn near drove the entire country off a cliff. Drill baby drill. Deregulation. Ownership society. Clearly intellectually superior that lot.

I agree with your post 100%. Both sides are full of shit.

 

[railer]

how long are people going to keep falling for that tired old lib/con scam?

 

[Moonbeam]

When you consider that conservatives feel like morons it is natural they would want to focus on something that makes them feel smart. Remember, always and everywhere, those traits you have learned to value you have learned to value because you were made to feel deficient in that trait. Liberals are much more porgoramificatious than conservatives but nobody on earth gives a shit. No feelings are stirred by the word.

The problem with feeling inferior, however, is that it makes you act as if you were. The motivation is to make sure that everybody else feels as bad as you.

 

[Slick5150]

Those questions are insanely idiotic. Most of them have a clearly debatable "right" answer, depending on circumstances and a host of other factors. To draw ANY conclusion based on those is laughable at best.

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. When Zogby accepts falsehoods as fact in the first place, the results will obviously be skewed.

There is no demonstrable relationship between minimum wage increases and unemployment. It's one of those things that look good in theory, but don't work out that way in reality, because the situation is more complex-

http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2006/08/unemployment-minimum-wage/

Just the first graph Google provided...Similarly, the Free trade leads to unemployment statement is a trick question. It depends on your perspective. Worldwide, employment stays the same when jobs are relocated overseas. In the target nation, the one losing jobs, increased unemployment is an obvious result.

Some of the other premises are in a similar vein... Garbage in, garbage out, a true cosmic constant...

 

[Slew Foot]

Can you wipe your own ass? Then yeah, youre smarter than a liberal.

 

[Slick5150]

Can you wipe your own ass? Then yeah, youre smarter than a liberal.

Can you tell the difference between a scientific poll and one designed to prove a predetermined answer? Then yeah, you might not be a partisan hack.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Can you wipe your own ass? Then yeah, youre smarter than a liberal.

Then again, some "liberals" can actually punctuate correctly...

 

[nonlnear]

Can you tell the difference between a scientific poll and one designed to prove a predetermined answer? Then yeah, you might not be a partisan hack.

There is no such thing as a scientific poll in the humanities. However that general point shouldn't detract from the fact that this poll is a particularly odorous piece of shit.

 

[Atreus21]

Conservatives, when they get things right it's by accident.

And Liberals, who are just wrong.

Two can play at this game, sucka.

 

[theeedude]

What if restrictions on housing development require that certain number units of affordable housing be built? That will make housing more affordable, at least to some people.
So the pollster is dumber than a fifth grader.

"unenlightened" answer sometimes is smarter than than the "enlightened" one from WSJ crew.

 

[CycloWizard]

Those questions need a "agree, but.." option.

I'm sure many of the folks that got it wrong were retarded... but even when I read it I think to myself "well yeah that is true, but it doesn't have to be... and why would i want sub division growth less restrictive?"

I could totally see many folks answering the question under the assumption that it asked "Does such and such have to be the case" as opposed to has it seemed to have been the case over the last several years, or is it the case in a perfect capitalist economy.

It DOES have to be true. This is one of the fundamental theorems of the calculus of variations: adding constraints to any problem will always result in a result that is equal to* or worse than a less constrained problem. This was mathematically proven hundreds of years ago.

*The only time the "equal to" applies is when the constraint is inactive, which doesn't apply in this case. If it did, then there would be no driving force for the change in regulation/subsidy in the first place.

 

[charrison]

What if restrictions on housing development require that certain number units of affordable housing be built? That will make housing more affordable, at least to some people.
So the pollster is dumber than a fifth grader.

"unenlightened" answer sometimes is smarter than than the "enlightened" one from WSJ crew.

And what makes those units affordable? are they smaller? lower build quality? or just the force of govt? What if the builder chooses not to build at because of less return? That means there is less supply and everyone is worse off.

 

[charrison]

Heh. When Zogby accepts falsehoods as fact in the first place, the results will obviously be skewed.

There is no demonstrable relationship between minimum wage increases and unemployment. It's one of those things that look good in theory, but don't work out that way in reality, because the situation is more complex-

http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2006/08/unemployment-minimum-wage/

Just the first graph Google provided...Similarly, the Free trade leads to unemployment statement is a trick question. It depends on your perspective. Worldwide, employment stays the same when jobs are relocated overseas. In the target nation, the one losing jobs, increased unemployment is an obvious result.

Some of the other premises are in a similar vein... Garbage in, garbage out, a true cosmic constant...

The reality is minimum wage is not a panacea for jobs either. There are also many bad side effects of such regulations. Sure some will get better, but others will not do as well. Liberals are for the most part blind to this.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

And Liberals, who are just wrong.

Two can play at this game, sucka.

Conservatives, they're so cute when they think they trump a liberal.

 

[MotF Bane]

What if restrictions on housing development require that certain number units of affordable housing be built? That will make housing more affordable, at least to some people.
So the pollster is dumber than a fifth grader.

"unenlightened" answer sometimes is smarter than than the "enlightened" one from WSJ crew.

Inefficient and flawed solution. Try another.

 

[soccerballtux]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282190930932412.html



A surprisingly high percentage of self-identified liberals and democrats fail at basic economics questions. I'm starting to think that the mind of a liberal works like this: "I want it to be true, so it must be true. It feels good for it to be true, so it is."

That's why they're liberals-- because they just don't understand economics. It took me about a year but my previously-staunchly-liberal friend now sees the Democrats' failed economic policies for what they are-- a lie from start to finish.

 

[heyheybooboo]

That's why they're liberals-- because they just don't understand economics. It took me about a year but my previously-staunchly-liberal friend now sees the Democrats' failed economic policies for what they are-- a lie from start to finish.

Gosh ...

Please extrapolate.

I love to see fools explain their tax-cut supply-side 'theory' as opposed to John Maynard Keynes.

We need the comic entertainment.




--

 

[Lonyo]

In the 1960s and 70s, mayors of growing suburban communities were anxious to codify this ideal in land use regulations. Municipal zoning ordinances began to prohibit multi-family and rental housing, as well as multi-use buildings. Most suburban zoning codes were written or revised to mandate single-family homes in residential areas with large home sizes and large plot sizes.

These and similar regulations helped suburban communities maximize their property tax revenues – the larger the home, the more taxes the owner must pay – in a socially-acceptable manner. Home buyers, after all, were investing not only in property but in the American Dream. Local regulations also served to exclude low-income (and, therefore, most minority) families from living in the suburbs. They now often exclude both low- and moderate-income workers.

The long-term impact of these local regulations is evidenced, partly, in the decline in the number of newly-constructed affordable housing units from 5 million in the 1970s to 2.2 million in the 1990s – despite a U.S. population increase of nearly 100,000,000 over that time.

http://www.citymayors.com/society/housing_usa.html
From there.
In the case described, it makes it seem like regulations (restrictions) managed to make housing more expensive.
Now, I have no idea of the validity of the website or its facts, or what side of the spectrum it's on, but if you remove the the sorts of regulation if talks about, which essentially prohibit low cost housing, then it might become more affordable.

The article is talking specifically about the 60s/70s though, but the point is the same. Just because you might think from an outright standpoint that less restrictions will typically lead to lower pricing, it all depends on where you start, and what the restrictions are, hence the people saying the poll is stupid. Because it is.

 

[tk149]

Those questions are insanely idiotic. Most of them have a clearly debatable "right" answer, depending on circumstances and a host of other factors. To draw ANY conclusion based on those is laughable at best.

Rather than focusing on whether respondents answered a question correctly, we instead looked at whether they answered incorrectly. A response was counted as incorrect only if it was flatly unenlightened.
[...]
Basic economics acknowledges that whatever redeeming features a restriction may have, it increases the cost of production and exchange, making goods and services less affordable. There may be exceptions to the general case, but they would be atypical.
[...]
Therefore, we counted as incorrect responses of "somewhat disagree" and "strongly disagree." This treatment gives leeway for those who think the question is ambiguous or half right and half wrong. They would likely answer "not sure," which we do not count as incorrect.

Did you actually read the article? Or perhaps you can explain in simple terms why the "wrong" answer is actually correct.

The other questions were: 1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree). 2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree). 3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree). 4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree). 5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree). 6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree). 7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree).

 

[ch33zw1z]

how long are people going to keep falling for that tired old lib/con scam?

It seems until the next revolution..

 

[Tristicus]

Conservatives, they're so cute when they think they trump a liberal.

Pretty sad people with down syndrome are smarter than liberals.

 

[ShawnD1]

Pretty sad people with down syndrome are smarter than liberals.

Sadly a lot of liberal ideas don't seem to take reality into account.

The first question is the best example. Do things like laws make housing more expensive? If you're not completely brain dead, you know that laws absolutely make things more expensive. The building must have fire exits, it must have fire alarms, it must have a fire annunciator, there must be fire-resistant insulation between floors and between rooms, all power cables in the building must have a dedicated ground wire, bathrooms need GFCI receptacles, power cables need to be a certain size, etc. All of this stuff costs money.

It's fine if you want all of this stuff. I support all of those things because I think safety is important, but let's not get stupid and say it's all free. When we don't think about the cost of what we are doing, we're more likely to make really bad mistakes (Iraq war = trillions of dollars and counting).

 

[Jhhnn]

It DOES have to be true. This is one of the fundamental theorems of the calculus of variations: adding constraints to any problem will always result in a result that is equal to* or worse than a less constrained problem. This was mathematically proven hundreds of years ago.

*The only time the "equal to" applies is when the constraint is inactive, which doesn't apply in this case. If it did, then there would be no driving force for the change in regulation/subsidy in the first place.

Human behavior does not follow mathematical models.

Try the opposite of the proposition posed in the Zogby poll-

"Unrestricted housing development makes housing more affordable."

Recent experience in Arizona, Nevada, Florida, and California tells us that's not true, either. It resulted in huge subdivisions of housing that wasn't really affordable at the time, and still isn't even after dramatic price declines...

The Zogby poll is a puff piece, pandering to Righties' established belief patterns, which are no more accurate today than they've ever been.

 

[CycloWizard]

Human behavior does not follow mathematical models.

Simply because we do not yet know the model does not mean the model doesn't exist, but that is really immaterial to the argument. Whether or not a model can ever be found, the principle is absolutely correct: eliminating options can never offer an improved solution to any problem. If you can choose between doors 1, 2, and 3 but the government says you aren't allowed to pick door #3, the maximum value of your final prize can never go up - it can only go down or stay the same. Since government is presumably not interested in passing laws that do not affect outcomes, they would presumably take away the choice you would make if you knew what was behind each door. Otherwise, the law would have absolutely no effect and would be meaningless.