Posted on 07/05/2011 8:27:07 PM PDT by upchuck
Are you more knowledgeable than the average citizen? The average score for all 2,508 Americans taking the following test was 49%; college educators scored 55%. Can you do better?
Take the test. 33 questions. It's not easy. Be sure to check out the table at the end of the quiz that shows the incredible spread between the scores of citizens and politicians.
Post your score below.
Enjoy!
Link.
32/33 — missed the Gettysburg Address question. I knew the phrase was in there, but I did not realize it was new. I thought Lincoln was referring to an already known phrase.
30 out of 33. Cool test!
Since the question did mention debt, I could not bring myself to assume it. And any good spending plan would include paying off debt.
“A Keynesian would say that increasing government spending would have a multiplier effect; however, it also increases public debt and withdraws that portion of money which would have a similar multiplier effect in private hands without increasing public debt. Harrumph. “
It has nothing to do with Keynesian multipliers because simply spending money on anything won’t do very much. You have to spend money on things that the private sector won’t do very well such as DARPA projects and the Space Program (which Obama wants to end). I don’t think the US would be what it is today without the interstate highways, national phone service, the internet and the fruits of our science research programs.
“Question: If taxes equal government spending, then:
Your Answer: government debt is zero
Correct Answer: tax per person equals government spending per person on average
The problem with their answer is that in a progressive tax structure many will pay more than others.”
yes but there are bigger problems with your answer :)
I missed one when this was posted a couple of months ago.
Obviously, I had to cram for the finals.
Yes it does, and nobody disputes the claim that spending increases aggregate demand [except, perhaps, you.] Bill's argument is correct. Keynes himself knew it: asked specifically about what his theories would do in "the long run," he gave a famous -- and typically liberal -- answer. There is every indication that the "stimulus" had a multiplier less than 0.5 once we get all the downward adjustments done in a year or so. That is truly pathetic when you consider that long term borrowing or taxation we need to pay it back will certainly have a negative effect on aggregate demand much larger than that.
32 of 33, and I also disagreed on the tax and spending government reaction to recession.
“Aint that the truth. And you may be defended by lightweights like Sean Hannity.”
And he’s on our side of the aisle. :/
We scored exactly the same in the same way.
29/33 - and, the ones I got wrong I knew I was wobbly on (some of thier choices were less than stellar), and would have looked them up to validate had it been important.
Never had much use for Sean, the master of the rhetorical interview: "Isn't this just the worst/best/most outrageous/hypocritical/heart-warming thing you ever saw?" He then seems surprised when the guest has nothing to work with other than "Why yes, yes it is." He was on full display today. And it was not pretty.
“There is every indication that the “stimulus” had a multiplier less than 0.5 once we get all the downward adjustments done in a year or so. That is truly pathetic when you consider that long term borrowing or taxation we need to pay it back will certainly have a negative effect on aggregate demand much larger than that.”
But that is my point. You don’t spend money on fixing potholes and shovel ready projects and unemployment extensions and call it a stimulus because it would increase aggregate demand. You’re only going to get a bang for the buck when the govt spends on things that only it can do very well. This is an application of micro, not macroeconomics.
This is the one I got wrong too, and it was because I missed that it was a historical question, rather than an economic one.
And here's the cynical Freeper reality check for it: If taxes are cut, where does the government get spending money? They borrow it from the Federal Reserve. So depressions can be argued to benefit the Fed by forcing an increase of the public debt (and many believe this is one of the reasons they "happen" in the first place).
So why even bother with a tinfoil hat, when such an economic benefit for the Fed is so obvious? Therefore, it's a historical question, if only because the Fed wouldn't have it any other way.
You do if you're a Keynesian, because that's the whole point. Aggregate demand did increase; the economy did have positive growth. That's never been the debate really. The debate is whether the government's choice of how to spend the money it borrows to increase demand is better than the choices of millions of individual Americans.
As a side issue, I'm not sure how much I agree with your point about the government's involvement in things "only it can do well." The Internet really was not what it is now when it was a DARPA or even a predominantly DARPA-University project. It took commercial [private] participation to really create what most people now think of as The Internet. I think the same thing is also true of NASA: once the space industry had matured, it was probably a mistake for NASA to remain involved -- although I agree with you that NASA's initial participation was necessary and good. Public transportation, postal or parcel delivery, etc are all mature industries, and it's time now for the government to get out of them, or to take the same role that the military does vis-a-vis defense contractors.
Not necessarily. At 0% taxation, there is no revenue, and at 100% taxation there is also no revenue. We know there is revenue collected at at least one level of taxation in between; therefore, by Rolle's Theorem there is some value between 0% and 100% where revenue is a maximum as a function of taxation. If you're to the right of that maximum, you can actually increase revenue by cutting taxes -- no borrowing is required.
90.91% - and one was a sheer goof-up. A few I really couldn’t answer but used the process of elimination and plain guessing.
But I’m not a keynesian. :) I want growth that doesn’t bankrupt this country’s future.
I agree that the best role of govt is to start something and then let private sector take on the maintenance. The internet used to consist of gray pages and gopher searches until people realized they could make big money off it.
However, US internet speeds are quite slow compared to Asian countries such as South korea and Japan because they have made investment a bigger priority.
You answered 29 out of 33 correctly — 87.88 %
If you have any comments or questions about the quiz, please email americancivicliteracy@isi.org.
You can consult the following table to see how citizens and elected officials scored on each question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.