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

Comment from bruce121

TueAMCSTE_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

TueAMCSTE_Rrdrd

Comment from Bobwilliams

SatAMCDTE_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

MonPMCDTE_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

FriAMCDTE_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 MikeClark

WedPMCDTE_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 MikeClark

WedPMCDTE_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 nemezide

WedAMCDTE_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

WedAMCDTE_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

WedAMCDTE_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

WedAMCDTE_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

WedAMCDTE_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

WedAMCDTE_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

WedAMCDTE_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

Comment from Essegi

WedAMCDTE_Rthth

Well done, I will suggest your name to the Sweden Academy

Comment from Treetrunk123

WedAMCDTE_Rthth

In my previous post, I hope I didn't give the impression that I agreed with Scott Adams' analysis of a "lukewarm cadaver", which I could only assume was the candidate who isn't going to tax Scott Adams, Sen John McCain. Just because McCain has engaged in bi-partisan efforts and doesn't throw flames around when he speaks doesn't mean he is "lukewarm". He is loyal and even feisty where it counts.

Comment from listo

WedAMCDTE_Rthth

"The economists in the survey favor Obama on 11 of the top 13 issues. But keep in mind that 48% are Democrats and only 17% are Republicans." Well, you make it sound strange but it seems very reasonable to me: most economists think Obama will do a better job => most economists are democrats

Comment from Maiar

WedAMCDTE_Rthth

At first glance, it looks like the views of Democrats and Republicans were biased toward their own candidates...but could it be that their preference for the candidates is because they think that the particular candidate has a better economic policy (I don't have a very good idea of how the "registration" for economists works partially because I'm not from the US. If they were "registered" before the presidential campaign even began, then my argument holds no water)

Comment from BostonStrangler

WedAMCDTE_Rthth

Did you keep the receipt?

Comment from Delphi

WedAMCDTE_Rthth

Scott, I am wondering why you trust so much the economists. I guess that Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, and AIG were all packed with economists, yet they did not helped much to prevent the sub-prime crisis, although it was obvious it going to pop up sometimes. On the other hand, the economists are good in giving you theoretical advices that somebody should consider when taking a decision, but I do not expect economists to know which the best approach is. All they should do is IMO to make a list of scenarios and options to choose from.