The Consensus of Economists

[HombrePequeno]

Robert Whaples surveys PhD members of the American Economic Association and finds substantial agreement on a wide range of policy issues. For example:

* 87.5 percent agree that "the U.S. should eliminate remaining tariffs and other barriers to trade."
* 85.2 percent agree that "the U.S. should eliminate agricultural subsidies."
* 85.3 percent agree that "the gap between Social Security funds and expenditures will become unsustainably large within the next fifty years if current policies remain unchanged."
* 77.2 percent agree that "the best way to deal with Social Security's long-term funding gap is to increase the normal retirement age."
* 67.1 percent agree that "parents should be given educational vouchers which can be used at government-run or privately-run schools."
* 65.0 percent agree that "the U.S. should increase energy taxes."

And, finally, the topic that generates the most consensus:

* 90.1 percent disagree with the position that "the U.S. should restrict employers from outsourcing work to foreign countries."

One issue that fails to generate consensus is the minimum wage: 37.7 percent want it increased, while 46.8 percent want it eliminated.

Source of commentary
Source of study
Table for study

I'm sure there is something for everyone to agree with and bitch about here. I myself don't think the best way to save SS is raise the age of retirement (I think that should play a part, however).

The lack of a consensus on minimum wage is interesting. I personally am in between on that one; I think it should remain the same and the EITC should be increased.

 

[Vic]

Why you Austrian School pro-corporatist! :|

 

[Genx87]

The only one I dont agree with is higher energy taxes.
The tariffs and barriers should go unless the people we are doing the trading with are cheating, IE subsidizing their industry to sell below cost to kill our industry. See what the Koreans did to our steel industry.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Genx87
The only one I dont agree with is higher energy taxes.
The tariffs and barriers should go unless the people we are doing the trading with are cheating, IE subsidizing their industry to sell below cost to kill our industry. See what the Koreans did to our steel industry.

The higher energy taxes are to take care of the cost externality of pollution. It may lower the incomes of the lower income quintiles but that can be made up for with raising the EITC or a tax cut in another area.

 

[techs]

Huh? Nothing to back this up except some guy supposedly did a study.
No methodology.
Not even the size of the sample, much less a definition of "economist".
Oh, wait. I can read it.
If I had a login.
So either post the study or give us a user/pass for the BE Press, since 1999.
Since 1999? Obviously they have no agenda and a great track record.
Guess what? 3 out of 4 dentists agree the sky is blue.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: techs
Huh? Nothing to back this up except some guy supposedly did a study.
No methodology.
Not even the size of the sample, much less a definition of "economist".
Oh, wait. I can read it.
If I had a login.
So either post the study or give us a user/pass for the BE Press, since 1999.
Since 1999? Obviously they have no agenda and a great track record.
Guess what? 3 out of 4 dentists agree the sky is blue.

I was kind of wondering the samething. 98% of stats are made up.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: techs
Huh? Nothing to back this up except some guy supposedly did a study.
No methodology.
Not even the size of the sample, much less a definition of "economist".
Oh, wait. I can read it.
If I had a login.
So either post the study or give us a user/pass for the BE Press, since 1999.
Since 1999? Obviously they have no agenda and a great track record.
Guess what? 3 out of 4 dentists agree the sky is blue.

That "some guy" is a Ph.D. professor of economics at Wake Forest, with the article backed up by a similar professor from Harvard. The definition of "economist" is precisely defined as "PhD members of the American Economic Association."

Guess what? Your whiny attempt to shoot the messenger just makes you look like a fool. Are you going to try to dispute other scientific consensuses like global warming or evolution next?

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: techs
Huh? Nothing to back this up except some guy supposedly did a study.
No methodology.
Not even the size of the sample, much less a definition of "economist".
Oh, wait. I can read it.
If I had a login.
So either post the study or give us a user/pass for the BE Press, since 1999.
Since 1999? Obviously they have no agenda and a great track record.
Guess what? 3 out of 4 dentists agree the sky is blue.

I have the original article. I'll upload it later after I get back from class. I'm not exactly sure I'm allowed to do that, however. I would think access is restricted for a reason and me allowing anyone to freely download is probably not they are going for.

Professor Mankiw is a pretty damn credible economist so I don't think he would link to an article that is completely BS.

 

[Craig234]

So, a group who concentrates on purely economic issues without regard to the social values and impact, who is paid by the corporations for the most part rather than by the workers, has these views. Don't confuse what's good for the corporations is good for society. That's the sort of approach that led us to the great depression.

Looking at it from what's good for society, I disagree with them on all but two - taxing energy to pay for the externialities, and possibly raising the age for social security.

 

[slash196]

The economy should be society's least important concern. Getting rich places a distant second to living a good life. Greed is not a fundamental human right.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234
So, a group who concentrates on purely economic issues without regard to the social values and impact, who is paid by the corporations for the most part rather than by the workers, has these views. Don't confuse what's good for the corporations is good for society. That's the sort of approach that led us to the great depression.

Looking at it from what's good for society, I disagree with them on all but two - taxing energy to pay for the externialities, and possibly raising the age for social security.

Do you always just post red herrings, talking points, and mindless rhetoric out your ass? I think it's time you were called to task on your constant BS.

Who pays your salary, I wonder? Could it be *gasp* a corporation?
What are your credentials in order to have an opinion on this issue more valid that that of scientific experts? Do you also deny other the consensuses of other scientific experts, like for global warming and evolution?
Are you not aware that economics is a social science?
Would you care to please explain to us how how this supposed pro-corporate approach supposedly caused the great depression as opposed to the liquidity bubble that most economic scientists agree on as the cause?
How is economics NOT what's good for society? Do you eat air? Do you expect everyone else to do the same?

 

[newmachineoverlord]

PhD members of the American Economic Association probably have a vested interest in these matters. I have no reason to trust them. 46.8% of PhD economists are quacks anyways. Neoclassical economics didn't even test its hypotheses against the real world, it was all just mathematical theory.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: slash196
The economy should be society's least important concern. Getting rich places a distant second to living a good life. Greed is not a fundamental human right.

So what you're saying is that you don't need to eat, be clothed, or even housed, and you expect that everyone else also lacks these basic needs?
Or are you really telling us that you don't have the slightest clue what economics and the economy is?

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slash196
The economy should be society's least important concern. Getting rich places a distant second to living a good life. Greed is not a fundamental human right.

So what you're saying is that you don't need to eat, be clothed, or even housed, and you expect that everyone else also lacks these basic needs?
Or are you really telling us that you don't have the slightest clue what economics and the economy is?

We can all have enough money to satisfy all our needs, and have a bit left over to have some fun, in a society where wealth is properly distributed. The only reason we have poverty in this country is that so much of the money that the people at the bottom need is instead concentrated in the hands of the rich and powerful. Capitalism has a specific, inherent flaw, and if you go to the poor neighborhoods of any major city you can see the economic enslavement of the lower classes with your own eyes.

A minimum wage is a great idea, a maximum wage is an even better idea. But no, that's EVIL SOCIALISM. We have to let the rich get richer, otherwise there'd be no incentive for them to continue screwing the rest of us. Excuse me if I have a sense of perspective on life.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slash196
The economy should be society's least important concern. Getting rich places a distant second to living a good life. Greed is not a fundamental human right.

So what you're saying is that you don't need to eat, be clothed, or even housed, and you expect that everyone else also lacks these basic needs?
Or are you really telling us that you don't have the slightest clue what economics and the economy is?

We can all have enough money to satisfy all our needs, and have a bit left over to have some fun, in a society where wealth is properly distributed. The only reason we have poverty in this country is that so much of the money that the people at the bottom need is instead concentrated in the hands of the rich and powerful. Capitalism has a specific, inherent flaw, and if you go to the poor neighborhoods of any major city you can see the economic enslavement of the lower classes with your own eyes.

A minimum wage is a great idea, a maximum wage is an even better idea. But no, that's EVIL SOCIALISM. We have to let the rich get richer, otherwise there'd be no incentive for them to continue screwing the rest of us. Excuse me if I have a sense of perspective on life.

So you would rather that we all live in poverty just so a few can't be rich? Your sense of perspective seems awfully slanted from reality. Sorry, I was just reading this news this morning from the glorious workers paradise of Cuba about how Fidel's brother, Raul, is to be his successor and I was wondering how that was any different from the medieval absolute monarchies... I suppose it must be, it's not like the Castros are rich or anything...

The problem with socialism is that only utopist morons believe in the fantasy, and they do nothing but serve as useful idiots for the rich and powerful they complain about.

 

[Craig234]

I'd answer your last questions, vic, if not for your first. oh well.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'd answer your last questions, vic, if not for your first. oh well.

Afraid to reveal your hypocrisy?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slash196
The economy should be society's least important concern. Getting rich places a distant second to living a good life. Greed is not a fundamental human right.

So what you're saying is that you don't need to eat, be clothed, or even housed, and you expect that everyone else also lacks these basic needs?
Or are you really telling us that you don't have the slightest clue what economics and the economy is?

We can all have enough money to satisfy all our needs, and have a bit left over to have some fun, in a society where wealth is properly distributed. The only reason we have poverty in this country is that so much of the money that the people at the bottom need is instead concentrated in the hands of the rich and powerful. Capitalism has a specific, inherent flaw, and if you go to the poor neighborhoods of any major city you can see the economic enslavement of the lower classes with your own eyes.

A minimum wage is a great idea, a maximum wage is an even better idea. But no, that's EVIL SOCIALISM. We have to let the rich get richer, otherwise there'd be no incentive for them to continue screwing the rest of us. Excuse me if I have a sense of perspective on life.

So you would rather that we all live in poverty just so a few can't be rich? Your sense of perspective seems awfully slanted from reality. Sorry, I was just reading this news this morning from the glorious workers paradise of Cuba about how Fidel's brother, Raul, is to be his successor and I was wondering how that was any different from the medieval absolute monarchies... I suppose it must be, it's not like the Castros are rich or anything...

The problem with socialism is that only utopist morons believe in the fantasy, and they do nothing but serve as useful idiots for the rich and powerful they complain about.

The same is true of Capiltalists.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

One issue that fails to generate consensus is the minimum wage: 37.7 percent want it increased, while 46.8 percent want it eliminated.

I find that second statistic interesting. It honestly makes me wonder whether people actually do learn from the past. Back when there was no minimum wage, factory wages could be so low that workers were barely any better than slaves (a lack of labor unions likely contributed to this as well).

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

One issue that fails to generate consensus is the minimum wage: 37.7 percent want it increased, while 46.8 percent want it eliminated.

I find that second statistic interesting. It honestly makes me wonder whether people actually do learn from the past. Back when there was no minimum wage, factory wages could be so low that workers were barely any better than slaves (a lack of labor unions likely contributed to this as well).

There's been more than enough economic evicence that having a minimum wage is detrimental to out society. That's probably where they are coming from.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

One issue that fails to generate consensus is the minimum wage: 37.7 percent want it increased, while 46.8 percent want it eliminated.

I find that second statistic interesting. It honestly makes me wonder whether people actually do learn from the past. Back when there was no minimum wage, factory wages could be so low that workers were barely any better than slaves (a lack of labor unions likely contributed to this as well).

There's been more than enough economic evicence that having a minimum wage is detrimental to out society. That's probably where they are coming from.

Is that the same evidence that refutes all the sky-is-falling rhetoric every time it is increased?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'd answer your last questions, vic, if not for your first. oh well.

Afraid to reveal your hypocrisy?

Sorry I was unclear. You spoke like an ass. Does that clear it up?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: fitzov
Is that the same evidence that refutes all the sky-is-falling rhetoric every time it is increased?

I don't want to sidetrack the thread on this particular issue so I'll just shut up about it and try to stay on topic.

 

[fitzov]

peeps should look at the pdf table on that page

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: spidey07
There's been more than enough economic evicence that having a minimum wage is detrimental to out society.

Theres also hard proof in our country's history that it beneficial.