WSJ: Liberals fail economics test, conservative and libertarians score best

HotAir

[Def Conservative]

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/08/wsj-liberals-fail-economics-test-conservative-and-libertarians-score-best/

[Def Conservative]

Consider this an answer to the silly “tests” and psychological reviews that the media likes to use to paint conservatives as either less intelligent or less sane than their “reality-based” opponents on the Left. The Wall Street Journal reports on a Zogby survey on economics that discovered a significant difference in results based on political ideology. Liberals scored worst, but who scored best? Not surprisingly, the purer free-marketeers, but not by much:

[Def Conservative]

Sorry, I meant to put the above in the “body” section.

[Jim W N]

Liberal economics flunks basic economics 101.

Keynesian economics upon which these Socialists heavily rely, has been soundly refuted scholastically by the likes of Milton Friedman, and historically all over the world.

Nevertheless, the mindless, headless monster of liberalism proceeds towards inevitable desolation undaunted by truth or fact. They call it "progressivism." Isn't that cute?

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

These really are not “gotcha” questions, and are not a matter of opinion, just bedrock ground truth. Frankly, I am shocked at the disparity of results. The only conclusion I reach is that liberals really are economically stupid or deeply in denial. On the other hand even a rudimentary understanding of economics makes you a conservative. I wonder how Krugman scored?

I’m thinking Obama would go 8 for 8. All wrong.

[for-q-clinton]

Here's the funny part. On an 8 question test here's how the party affiliation broke down:

The survey also asked about party affiliation. Those responding Democratic averaged 4.59 incorrect answers. Republicans averaged 1.61 incorrect, and Libertarians 1.26 incorrect.

Rats scored a 43%
Republicans scored an 80%
Libertarians scored an 84%

[Moby Grape]

This reminds me of the poll Zogby did shortly after the election that found that those who voted for Obama knew almost NOTHING about anything.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

These questions (read the article) are not as poorly determined as the efficacy of Keynesian economics. Milton Friedman, for instance, accepted Keynes arguments with the stipulation that any real world attempt to apply Keynesian principles would be wrecked on the twin shoals of political expediency and imperfect information. Freidman’s argument was not that Keynes was essentially wrong, but that in the real world politicians would abuse the principles (can you say “earmark”?) and no one actually knows how hard to pump the Keynesian lever or when to stop. Other than that it's a great idea.

Denying that rent control reduces the availability of housing flies in the face of common sense and experience, on the hand. No respectable economist would deny it.

[Mr. K]

This is as obvious as water being wet. To anyone with a brain, liberals just are so exasperatingly stupid in anything that matters

Liberalism is child-like sentiment applied to adult problems.

[Moby Grape]

One of my favortie Reagan quotes:

“It isn’t that liberals are ignorant, it is just that they KNOW so much that isn’t true.”

[SunTzuWu]

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/08/wsj-liberals-fail-economics-test-conservative-and-libertarians-score-best/

[Jim W N]

[when to stop] pump[ing] the Keynesian lever...Other than that it's a great idea.

Disagree. The liberals are economic idiots. Schwarzenegger was right although he eventually wimped out himself on his stand: liberals are economic girly men.

In both Capitalism and Freedom and Free to Choose, Friedman rejects government interference with the free-market system with sound theory and historical fact. He refuted Keynesian "pump prime" government-spending theories and provided copious evidence of its historical failure. There's copious evidence of the success of government-free capitalism whereas Keynesian socialism has consistently been a miserable failure. Socialism is a proven bankrupt system.

Friedman himself also demonstrated this in countries around the world like Chile that asked for his help a few decades ago. They implemented his free-market suggestions, shedding command and control economics and the results were astonishingly successful.

[Oceander]

liberals really are economically stupid

And then some.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Freidman refutes Keynesism on empirical and practical political grounds, not on first principles, although, on its face Keynesian economics seems counter intuitive. Hoover was essentially a pre-Keynesian, and Roosevelt ran in 1932 on essentially an anti-Keynesian platform, though once elected he outed Keynesed Hoover. (Coolidge, who instinctively favored small government and free markets, found Hoover to be bursting with bad ideas.)

It’s pretty clear that Obama’s economic “wisdom” is at best superficial and received and not in anyway based on any practical experience or derived from studing history or data.

[Jim W N]

Coolidge, who instinctively favored small government and free markets, found Hoover to be bursting with bad ideas.

Cool Cal and Reagan - the only true conservative presidents in the 20th century. Amazing how resilient America is.