Comments for entry "Dilbert Survey of Economists" at Dilbert.com Blog

Comment from bruce121

TueAMPSTE_Rrdrd

Well,the survey is quite interesting and informative.Obama leads the result except in Immigration and Reducing waste in government,may i know the reasons for that? Thank's. ---------------------------------------- bruce [url="http://www.cashsurveys.net"]Surveys[/url]

Comment from bruce121

TueAMPSTE_Rrdrd

Comment from tragicmishap

SunPMPDTE_Rthth

"Marx himself, in the course of his lifetime, envisaged two broad lines of action that could be adopted to destroy the bourgeoisie: one was violent revolution; the other, a slow increase of state power, though extended social services, taxation, and regulation, to a point where a smooth transition could be effected from an individualist to a collectivist society... It is a revolution of the second type, one that advocates a slow but relentless transfer of power from the individual to the state, that has roots in the Department of Economics at Yale, and unquestionably in similar departments in many colleges throughout the country." William F. Buckley, Jr. "God and Man at Yale" 1949

Comment from Bobwilliams

SatAMPDTE_Rthth

creator of the Dilbert comic strip, commissioned a survey of over 500 economists to find out which candidate for President of the United States would be best for the economy long term. Says Adams, "I found myself wishing someone would give voters useful and unbiased information about which candidate has the best plans for the economy. Then I realized that I am someone, which is both inconvenient and expensive." ========================= Bobwilliams Viral marketing

Comment from dustyken

MonPMPDTE_Rndnd

I'm sure that you have seen this, but I found this article today: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0

Comment from survey

FriAMPDTE_Rthth

I found the survey and the following discussion really interesting (especially because I am an economist). In particular, the conclusion by Dilbert that: ''[â€¦] you should expect [economists] to cross party lines when the data is clear and understood, and to lean toward party loyalties when things get fuzzy. That's how humans are wired. We like our team.'' is really a good news to meâ€¦ Actually these Dilbert's survey result is really similar to the one I and a co-author got conducting a survey on Italian economists' opinions. Interesting, isn't it? If you are interested in our survey's results have a look at http://micdimaio.googlepages.com/surveyofitalianeconomists Ciao, michele

Comment from Stomper

ThuPMPDTE_Rthth

Good job Scott. I should not be (but I am) disappointed at the number of your commenters who expected a glaring result that would jump out without the need for any thought or analysis. Your survey does not resolve any arguments, but it does provide additional, useful ammunition for those arguments. That's the most it ever could have done. As to those who claim Obama voted against health care for fetuses that survive abortion, have you looked at what else was in the Illinois bill (not the comparable federal bill -- I'm talking about the actual bill he actually voted on)? When a politician votes against an entire bill with numerous facets, it is logically indefensible to then isolate one element from that bill and conclude that he must oppose that element. It is shockingly unfair and misleading to then spread that claim around as an established fact, without acknowledging the other facets and implications of that bill. If you just want to smear the opposing candidate, then go ahead and mislead people. If you want a genuine discussion, then at least state the facts correctly (e.g., "Obama opposed a Right to Life bill that included . . .").

Comment from HumilityRocks

ThuAMPDTE_Rthth

Grinwell wrote, "Wouldn't it be weirder if their positions were contrary to their political preference? We are assuming economists aren't morons--if they believe one party is better for the economy, you would hope they would vote that way" Sure, and that's a completely fair point. What I was trying to express was a bit different. If you surveyed farmers, instead of economists, and asked them for the three biggest factors for farming were... one of those answers would be, "the weather" and republicans, democrats and independents would agree on that one. If you have a bad enough drought, it doesn't matter if fuel is free, your crop still sucks that year. But it looked like there wasn't even agreement on what the top three issues are... and even those went along party lines. That is what was troubling. You would think that on a number of economic issues, economists would agree, in spite of what political affiliation they favored... but that didn't seem to be the case. Think of it this way. If 90% of economists favored McCain's approach to taxes, holy cats that would be huge.

Comment from MikeClark

WedPMPDTE_Rthth

> Nice job with the straw men, but you didn't actually refute my arguments Au contraire. In my post, I argued that between unaccountable social activists posing as academics vs. drivers of the economy who are responsible for creating wealth (or directing its creation, if that makes you happy), that CEOs are infinitely more qualified to judge the economic policies of presidential candidates. And then you agreed with me. You agreed that CEOs "organize...capital that is necessary for the workers to continue to create wealth." Put another way, it is business people who are knowledgeable of economics and how governmental economic policy will affect their business, their industry, and business in general in the national economy. It was my argument to lose, and despite your hot air, Equality 7-2521, my argument is unchallenged.

Comment from jackjumper

WedPMPDTE_Rthth

Mike - Nice job with the straw men, but you didn't actually refute my arguments

Comment from MikeClark

WedPMPDTE_Rthth

jackjumper: > One small correction. Businesses don't create wealth. Workers create wealth. > Businesses are a means to organize workers so that they can work together > to create wealth more efficiently. Amusing, but that's not the way it works. Business people have a different attitude and drive than most other people. If a business person can't get help, he does it himself. On the other hand, if a more typical person can't get a job, he simply doesn't work. The thought of creating wealth outside the role of an employee is a foreign thought. > CEOs then take a cut of the wealth for providing a place to work. They also > organize (but don't usually directly supply - that's the banks job) capital that > is necessary for the workers to continue to create wealth (i.e. raw materials). That's what it looks like from a Marxist view, yes. But it's not reality. > Think of it this way: Can a business with zero workers create wealth? Businesses are people, not pieces of paper, so if the question is can a business _person_ with zero employees create wealth, then again, the answer is yes. A business _person_ will create wealth with or without the help of others. Hundreds of thousands do it every single day. But there are millions that don't--and won't.

Comment from jackjumper

WedPMPDTE_Rthth

Mike Clark: One small correction. Businesses don't create wealth. Workers create wealth. Businesses are a means to organize workers so that they can work together to create wealth more efficiently. CEOs then take a cut of the wealth for providing a place to work. They also organize (but don't usually directly supply - that's the banks job) capital that is necessary for the workers to continue to create wealth (i.e. raw materials). Think of it this way: Can a business with zero workers create wealth?

Comment from jackjumper

WedPMPDTE_Rthth

Hey idsigs - they get *three* choices, not two. There is *no* case where the total of Obama and No Diff votes are less than the Democratic percentage in the survey. So the Democratic economists are not in any answer saying McCain is better.

Comment from nemezide

WedAMPDTE_Rthth

> for voters. Asking CEOs what should be done about the economy is like asking criminals > for legal advice. Actually, you'd be surprised. Some criminals give awesome legal advice. It's crucial for them to know every little hole in the law. Another two things I noticed in these comments: 1. nobody reads others' comments 2. no one here seems to think that religious motivation and war could be relevant to economy

Comment from MikeClark

WedAMPDTE_Rthth

> But remember that CEOs are paid to be advocates for their stockholders, not advocates > for voters. Asking CEOs what should be done about the economy is like asking criminals > for legal advice. That's RIDICULOUS! What do you think makes a strong economy? Government? Government produces nothing--it only consumes. Academics? Please. Academics are little more than political activists on the government dole. Look, the country is just like person. if you want more wealth, you work more and produce more. And who is that produces wealth in a national economy? BUSINESSES of all sizes. Businesses create wealth and jobs, and that contributes to a strong national economy (not to mention that their products and services benefit their customers). So why not ask CEOs? They don't just participate in the economy, they drive it. Unlike academic pinheads, CEOs are accountable to others for producing, creating, and building wealth. And although you imply that shareholders of any given company are somehow separate from the economy, they are, in fact, a part of it. The ultimate question regarding economics is, how do you make it easier for producers to produce, and nobody knows better than the producers themselves: business people. P.S. I'm continually troubled by the portrayal of the "profit motive" as some sort of sin or vice. It is no vice, and there is nothing sinful about working hard to create a better life for one's self, one's family, and the benefactors of one's voluntary charity.

Comment from bigred3142

WedAMPDTE_Rthth

I , for one, am incredibly shocked Democratic voted democratic republicans voted republican independants were split Did the fact that they were economists make any difference ? what about asking the same question of dog walkers , garbage men, and carpenters? I bet youll get nearly the same result -and save a buck , scott! There is no one in this country who can make a non partisan decision - when watching any talking head , as soon as you find out what party affiliation someone is , you know exactly what they will say nothing to see here ....

Comment from idsigs

WedAMPDTE_Rthth

I thought it was interesting that on over half of the issues Obama gets a lower percent of supporters than the percent of registered Democrats in the sample. Can you imagine a registered Democrat saying that McCain is better at encouraging technology innovation than Obama? Or preserving social security? Or reducing the defecit? That has happened. I would have thought that given the sample they would have been more partisan. Look at International Trade, Mortgage/Housing Crisis, Immigration, and Reducing Waste in Government. Not good for Obama. I can picture the outcome of the same survey in a sample that was 3 to 1 registered Republican. My interpretation: registered Democrats will support McCain on many key economic issues, or at least agree that there is no difference between the candidates. The exceptions are Education, where he gives up a lot of ground to Obama, and "Increasing Taxes on the Wealthy". It is hard to say whether the latter really fits anyway - it is the only question that substitutes a partisan policy for a broad topic. It would have been better worded as general Tax Policy.

Comment from frogsbug

WedAMPDTE_Rthth

This would have been much more useful if you also asked for a rating of the importance of each of these issues to the economy. This would allow for weighting. The environment and international traded were both very skewed (in different directions), but which one is more important to our economy as a whole?

Comment from rbgos

WedAMPDTE_Rthth

"...Just because McCain has engaged in bi-partisan efforts and doesn't throw flames around when he speaks doesn't mean he is "lukewarm"... " I'm guessing that when Scott suggests McCain is "lukewarm", he's not referring so much to his political bi-partisanship, than the fact that he is only just about alive...

Comment from callcopse

WedAMPDTE_Rthth

What I would like to know is will you consider yourself qualified to vote as a result of this survey Scott? And will it be for Obama - if you care to share. cheers, Iain