Are you smarter than a liberal?

[GuitarDaddy]

HOLD STILL OP, THIS WILL STING JUST A BIT

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

Mere reiteration of faith, of what you already believe to be true, and lame in the extreme.

What if I tell you that there's a fur coat behind door #3, but forget to mention that the grizzly bear who's wearing it might take exception to your having it?

Eliminating door #3 doesn't improve the best possible solution, but rather limits the worst, rendering your observations absurd.

Not to mention that mathematical models describing human behavior are often chosen because they support what the picker wanted in the first place, as with Wall Street's mathematical modeling of mortgages, bonds and derivatives...

One of those "Find me a way!" deals, like rationalizations for the invasion of Iraq...

 

[WhipperSnapper]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282190930932412.htmlA 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."

If the Conservatives are so smart, how come they can't realize that America's current health care system is broken whereas real socialized medicine has proven to be far superior?

 

[CycloWizard]

Mere reiteration of faith, of what you already believe to be true, and lame in the extreme.

What if I tell you that there's a fur coat behind door #3, but forget to mention that the grizzly bear who's wearing it might take exception to your having it?

Eliminating door #3 doesn't improve the best possible solution, but rather limits the worst, rendering your observations absurd.

So you cede that government can never improve your possible outcomes by eliminating a choice? Good, at least you're open to reason. So, your new argument is that the role of government is to tell me what is bad for me rather than letting me make my own decision? If I don't know what is good for me, then how can government possibly know?

Not to mention that mathematical models describing human behavior are often chosen because they support what the picker wanted in the first place, as with Wall Street's mathematical modeling of mortgages, bonds and derivatives...

No one argued that any mathematical model describes human behavior - that is your strawman. Are you now recanting and renewing your argument that removing choices can improve an outcome?

One of those "Find me a way!" deals, like rationalizations for the invasion of Iraq...

That's a sentence fragment at best. I will therefore refrain from addressing any potential fallacies that the full sentence might have contained, unless you'd care to continue in this vein.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Some of the questions are matters of opinion and do not have real clear cut answers:

2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree).

Is the standard of living higher or lower today than it was in 1980? That depends on numerous factors and which ones you consider important. It's not that clear cut.

5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree).

This is also a matter of opinion. An excellent argument can be made that Chinese laborers are being "exploited" even though they are working "voluntarily". (Enlightened people know that when you think about this issue you have to consider the entire context. Just because someone agrees to work for a low wage does not necessarily mean that they were truly free not to agree to work for that wage.)

6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree)

Daniel Klein is completely wrong on this point and betrays his inability to understand basic economics such as the effect of the supply of labor in other countries on wages and the demand for labor domestically. It suggests that he fails to understand the concept of Global Labor Arbitrage.

7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree).

Aren't there various studies out there which show that it really doesn't cause as much unemployment as we would intuitively expect?

This guy is just a free market dogmatist shill or what some might call a "no-think" economist.

 

[Jhhnn]

No one argued that any mathematical model describes human behavior - that is your strawman. Are you now recanting and renewing your argument that removing choices can improve an outcome?

You made that argument from the outset.

Removing choices can obviously improve aggregate outcomes by eliminating the poorest choices from consideration. It's really that simple. It's not like some of the poorer outcomes wrt housing haven't been observed and accounted for in terms of zoning, building codes and finance. The latter, of course, got thrown under the bus in pursuit of the cut red tape self regulated banking free market ownership society...

The results are demonstrably negative for the population as a whole, but of extreme benefit to a very, very few...

 

[CycloWizard]

You made that argument from the outset.

No. That is your ignorant interpretation of my statement.

Removing choices can obviously improve aggregate outcomes by eliminating the poorest choices from consideration. It's really that simple. It's not like some of the poorer outcomes wrt housing haven't been observed and accounted for in terms of zoning, building codes and finance. The latter, of course, got thrown under the bus in pursuit of the cut red tape self regulated banking free market ownership society...

How does government know what the poorest choices are if individuals do not? The only justification which I could make for this argument (though please feel free to offer your own) is that politicians are smarter/more experienced/better educated than the average individual and may therefore make a better decision. However, the history of the past decade is a litany of evidence to the contrary.

The results are demonstrably negative for the population as a whole, but of extreme benefit to a very, very few...

The results of government eliminating choices for the population as a whole is demonstrably negative except for a few, if that's what you're saying. It would be easier to know for certain that you are agreeing with me if you expressed yourself in complete thoughts rather than using vague palliatives and ellipsis...

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

It's really scary that so many of you can hold to your conservative ideology after what 8 years of it did to this country. Liberal ideology is pretty good at screwing up state government, but I have to hand it to you conservatives for damn near taking an entire country down. And Hell, you still might, we haven't pulled ourselves out of the hole yet, and more leftover conservative surprises continue to pop up. WTF do you guys need to see that you're just all sorts of fucking wrong?

 

[CycloWizard]

It's really scary that so many of you can hold to your conservative ideology after what 8 years of it did to this country. Liberal ideology is pretty good at screwing up state government, but I have to hand it to you conservatives for damn near taking an entire country down. And Hell, you still might, we haven't pulled ourselves out of the hole yet, and more leftover conservative surprises continue to pop up. WTF do you guys need to see that you're just all sorts of fucking wrong?

Bush was not fiscally conservative. That is a completely baseless talking point which is posted here every 10-15 seconds. Compared to Obama, he might be fiscally conservative, but he was not a true fiscal conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[nonlnear]

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.

This is dead wrong. Rational actor theory is a wonderful model for simplified abstract simulations but it is not how humans behave. It is completely untrue that removing choices or information must result in worse (or at least unimproved) outcomes. Why do you think all the unhealthy over-processed foods in the grocery store are covered with information about their health benefits? It's because the marketing industry is about 30 years ahead of you. Telling people that an incredibly fatty potato chip is "now 100% trans fat free" (when it always was) is 100% true, and pretty much guaranteed to lead to poorer (or at least no better) decisions being made by most people in terms of evaluating the nutritional quality of the food they buy.

Now I'm not one to use the insights of behavioral economics to advocate for heavy handed regulation of information flows and consumer choice, but at least let the insights that are already well established inform you enough to stop trotting out the assertions of rational actor theory when they have been debunked for quite some time now.

 

[Steeplerot]

but he was not a true fiscal conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

Well, there never has been real Communism either if we are getting into fairytales.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Bush was not fiscally conservative. That is a completely baseless talking point which is posted here every 10-15 seconds. Compared to Obama, he might be fiscally conservative, but he was not a true fiscal conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

Don't play the fiscally conservative card like Bush wasn't stereotypically conservative in every other possible way.

 

[CycloWizard]

This is dead wrong. Rational actor theory is a wonderful model for simplified abstract simulations but it is not how humans behave. It is completely untrue that removing choices or information must result in worse (or at least unimproved) outcomes. Why do you think all the unhealthy over-processed foods in the grocery store are covered with information about their health benefits? It's because the marketing industry is about 30 years ahead of you. Telling people that an incredibly fatty potato chip is "now 100% trans fat free" (when it always was) is 100% true, and pretty much guaranteed to lead to poorer (or at least no better) decisions being made by most people in terms of evaluating the nutritional quality of the food they buy.

Now I'm not one to use the insights of behavioral economics to advocate for heavy handed regulation of information flows and consumer choice, but at least let the insights that are already well established inform you enough to stop trotting out the assertions of rational actor theory when they have been debunked for quite some time now.

I didn't argue that more information would lead to better decisions, only that removing possibilities can never lead to better options for the individual. They can lead to fewer bad options, but never more better options.

 

[CycloWizard]

Don't play the fiscally conservative card like Bush wasn't stereotypically conservative in every other possible way.

I don't care if he was stereotypically conservative in every other way - that does not make him a fiscal conservative. I'm not playing any card - I'm stating a fact.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I don't care if he was stereotypically conservative in every other way - that does not make him a fiscal conservative. I'm not playing any card - I'm stating a fact.

He was 90% conservative, you can't say he wasn't because of the other 10%.

 

[CycloWizard]

He was 90% conservative, you can't say he wasn't because of the other 10%.

He was not fiscally conservative. Since this is a discussion about economic policy, I don't give a rat's ass whether you think the rest of his policies were conservative or not. Are you 100% conservative or liberal? Do you even know that it's possible to be somewhere in between? Can you comprehend that the conservative/liberal labels are simply labels to allow simpletons to paint the opposition with a broad brush, or are you one of those simpletons?

 

[ShawnD1]

Some of the questions are matters of opinion and do not have real clear cut answers:

A lot of them do have clear cut answers and the author is just a retard.

Is the standard of living higher or lower today than it was in 1980? That depends on numerous factors and which ones you consider important. It's not that clear cut.

On average, it's much higher. One of the strongest indicators is the obesity rate. Another one would be how many people have telephones and television.

(free trade) Daniel Klein is completely wrong on this point and betrays his inability to understand basic economics such as the effect of the supply of labor in other countries on wages and the demand for labor domestically. It suggests that he fails to understand the concept of Global Labor Arbitrage.

Absolutely. One of the effects of free trade that people are constantly bitching about is how everything is made in China. Factories in the US shut down and move to China because it's so much cheaper. Usually a country will put taxes on foreign goods to level out the prices and encourage domestic productivity. Under free trade (free trade = no taxes added to foreign goods), foreign goods are a lot cheaper. Jeans made in China are maybe $15 at Walmart. A pair of jeans made in the US would cost maybe $20-30 for the exact same material and quality. It greatly benefits poor countries like China and India while it has arguably negative effects on wealthier countries. Everything is cheaper, but the country will have a large trade deficit. Is that such a bad thing? You decide.

Aren't there various studies out there which show that it really doesn't cause as much unemployment as we would intuitively expect?

Nobody would expect it to cause unemployment. The argument given by conservatives is that it would raise the cost of goods by a very small amount. A burger at McDonalds might cost $3.50 instead of $3.40. This is literally what conservatives have been saying on TV about how minimum wage will affect everyone. Minimum wage workers see maybe a 20% wage increase while the cost of the goods they produce only goes up 5%. Companies that already pay above minimum wage (ie McDonalds, Walmart, ever other store in the world) would see no price increases at all.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

He was not fiscally conservative. Since this is a discussion about economic policy, I don't give a rat's ass whether you think the rest of his policies were conservative or not. Are you 100% conservative or liberal? Do you even know that it's possible to be somewhere in between? Can you comprehend that the conservative/liberal labels are simply labels to allow simpletons to paint the opposition with a broad brush, or are you one of those simpletons?

Umm, Bush was pro business, anti regulation, and a whole slew of other economic policies that were conservative. You can whine and stamp your feat all you want but he was a conservative despite his excessive spending habits.

 

[charrison]

Nobody would expect it to cause unemployment. The argument given by conservatives is that it would raise the cost of goods by a very small amount. A burger at McDonalds might cost $3.50 instead of $3.40. This is literally what conservatives have been saying on TV about how minimum wage will affect everyone. Minimum wage workers see maybe a 20% wage increase while the cost of the goods they produce only goes up 5%. Companies that already pay above minimum wage (ie McDonalds, Walmart, ever other store in the world) would see no price increases at all.

Actually economist realize that unemployment is one of the side effects of minimum wage laws. What economist debate is if the the laws are a net positive or not. For instance the recent minimum wage laws affected one of the islands in US territory. Because of that law change, 2000 lost their jobs. Those jobs were converted to 200 jobs in a much more automated cannery in the US.


also consider

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/S5F_DrAYJxI/AAAAAAAAM8Y/hb9t0EddyqA/s1600-h/minwage1.jpg
I realize some of this is caused by the recession, but I think it is fair to say some of it is not.

 

[Nemesis 1]

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

Really like your using a special ed. pic of a special needs person . It shows your true values. I thought liberals stood by these types rather than poke fun at them and use pics. of them to demean others. your superior intellagence truely shows threw in your post .

Its sad how liberials use race and demeanor of others to fight a sad debate . Grow a freaken brain.

 

[bfdd]

Bush was not fiscally conservative. That is a completely baseless talking point which is posted here every 10-15 seconds. Compared to Obama, he might be fiscally conservative, but he was not a true fiscal conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

True that. I don't even understand the whole "Bush almost sunk the whole country" thing either. Considering it's still getting worse and we've changed leadership.

 

[Nemesis 1]

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).

You left out the part where China sheet rock was used that rots all these safty values from the outside in . Not to mention the health hazards that follow .
Trueth is both libs and con. believe in the same exact god (Money) . Your both the same your both on the same side of fence . Con, try to walk the line but always fall off on the same side as libs . Look at America . Both sides are losers and the innocent pay the price . The Children .

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

True that. I don't even understand the whole "Bush almost sunk the whole country" thing either. Considering it's still getting worse and we've changed leadership.

You think if they had changed captains after the Titanic hit the iceberg it would have been the new guy's fault it sank?

 

[charrison]

You think if they had changed captains after the Titanic hit the iceberg it would have been the new guy's fault it sank?

Well, the new captain appears to be looking for icebergs to run into.

 

[theeedude]

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.

The question doesn't ask that. The point is the "enlightened" answer is not same as the right answer all the time. The "enlightened" crew thought banks and oil companies should regulate themselves.