Comments for entry "My Views on the Dilbert Survey of Economists" at Dilbert.com Blog

Comment from lsmv

MonAMPDTE_Rndnd

Twenty years ago when I took a course in industrial policy, we discussed all the various ways that government can participate in the markets, and after finding shortcomings in all of them, the professor concluded the class be saying that supporting education was the most market neutral method by which the government could support the economy. This is why economists have such a strong support for education. It's not a matter of self-interest. For anyone who has studied economics it should not be a surprise to see that economists place the most priority on this issue. Also all of economics starts with the assumption that people behave rationality. For markets to efficiently allocate resources it is also necessary that market participants are well-informed. The very underpinnings of all of economics relies on an educated populace. Behavorial economics and common sense tells us people do not always behave rationally, but the closer the better from an economics point of view. Some of the most acrimonious arguments in society take place of matter of economics, yet in no place in are current educational system do we have a requirement that students study economics. So it is not surprising that commenters are surprised by what economists think, but it should be surprising that we still do not consider an exposure to economics to be a requirement to be an effective citizen in a democratic society.

Comment from Hemantsclone

MonAMPDTE_Rndnd

This is what the rest of the world that logs on to Dilbert.com learnt: 1. American Politics has matured indeed (Probably due to the Lawyers) 2. Every voter has just one vote. He/ She cannot vote on each issue. 3. A candidate cannot fulfil all the demands of the voter. 4. Voter realises that. 5. Candidate realises that too. 6. Candidate eliminates subject from the voters preference list that are not the candidates strengths. 7. One way is, carry out a survey. Candidate gets flying colors. Voters gives it a miss in the preference list. 8. Other way works too. If candidate is strong in one subject, split it into several heads and count each one separately. Fill the voters head with different shades of the same subject... Works on America, works everywhere...

Comment from grahampowell

SatAMPDTE_Rthth

There's a website that I think is misrepresenting your results, saying something like "Economists support Obama by 2-to-1 margin". You might want to set them straight: http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/09/66-of-economists-are-economists-for.html Graham

Comment from tumidity

FriAMPDTE_Rthth

SPELLING FLAME! TEAT, not TEET! Or as a famous conservative !$%*!$% said: "It ain't the teat, it's the tumidity"

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€œ[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.â€ is really a good news to meâ€¦ Actually these Dilbertâ€™s survey result is really similar to the one I and a co-author got conducting a survey on Italian economists' opinions. Interesting, isnâ€™t it? If you are interested in our surveyâ€™s results have a look at http://micdimaio.googlepages.com/surveyofitalianeconomists Ciao, michele

Comment from tragicmishap

ThuAMPDTE_Rthth

But...but...Barack Obama called Sarah Palin a pig! A PIG!!!

Comment from gargamel9

ThuAMPDTE_Rthth

I loved this: I wish someone did something about that! then I realised I was someone, and wasnâ€™t doing anything about it, so I did. Thatâ€™s the kind of thinking we need so the XXI wont be another XX century! Personally I donâ€™t believe leaders can do much about economy in a global economy. Multinationals, oil prices and global scares fuelled by the media like the internet bubble have much, much more impact on than any leader alone, which in my opinion have only the power to make things either worse or not so bad. What interested me, aside for the great kind of initiative scott had which inspired me, was the thing about tribal behaviour and its correlation with cognitive dissonance. What is needed so someone who has picked a side and more or less strongly supported it in discussions and so on (or on papers or books like these academics must have done, which is important cause when you write it down it is even harder to change your mind about the subject) to be objective and say the other tribe is right when that happens (it must happen no tribe, side, religion or whatever the topic can be right every single time). In my country, recently a group of rogue historians recently dug up a lot of material from the time of our civil war that demonstrates that the whole basis of the thesis that most historians published to date is biased, wrong, and not base in any fact other than the propaganda from one side. Iâ€™ve seen a lot of the documents, some of those rogue historians printed copies of the originals on their books and the evidence cannot be ignored. Well do you think anyone of the historians inteligenzia did acknowledge the validity of those new discoveries and facts that brought down all the basis for their thesis? Not only not a single one of them did, but they proceeded to attack the rogue guys, and recently they are being censored and banished from all papers except a small one that its published on the internet. So what does it take for that tribal thinking (which Iâ€™m sure I have and in fact almost anyone I suppose has about a lot of topics, like football, politics, religionâ€¦) to be defeated by undisputable facts that prove your tribe wrong? Are we immune to reason on those cases?

Comment from TheNeverMind

ThuAMPDTE_Rthth

"If the survey made you think about any of the issues on a deeper level, I got my money's worth." I think you got your money's worth. I think that the data collected in the survey wasn't worth much - but the discussion that it generated has definitely been more interesting than trying to figure out what was really meant by "putting lipstick on a pig".

Comment from KevinKunreuther

ThuAMPDTE_Rthth

I noticed the date for the comic is 11-7-08. That punchline is going to be old news by the time it gets syndicated. Interestingly enough, it will published three days after the election. Perhaps it can get "updated" before official publication.

Comment from larskj

ThuAMPDTE_Rthth

The suggestion of a control group of non US economists seems sound in principle- but based on the fact that the wast majority of foreigners (I'm in that gorup) hate Bush with a passion that almost religious I believe this would be a rather biased control group. Honestly I think that finding a dispassionate third party might be a little difficult. I also find the idea that people are university employees because they are lazy to be quite insulting- believe me most of the academics I know work harder for less pay than most of the people I know in the private sector. Mind you independent business people may work harder than both, probably they do. But if you are going to be lazy it requires a lot of hard work to acquire the tenure you need to be able to be lazy in academia. In fact the only way to be lazy id to acquire enough minions to do you work for you- and hence become a manager. Couse this is from a science background- I don't know if the social science guys do any work.

Comment from KevinKunreuther

ThuAMPDTE_Rthth

1.)jkinney5 - sign your comments with your real name if you got something to say, coward. The door ain't going to hit me because it ain't their anymore - it was mortgaged to the hilt, foreclosed, repossessed and sold off to highest bidder. 2.)An very current and interesting article on management and leadership from the I, Cringely web page ( http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2008/pulpit_20080917_005420.html ).

Comment from ortelius

ThuAMPDTE_Rthth

Nice survey, but slightly useless in some aspects. Well, economists can say something on "reducing the deficit" or "mortgage/housing crisis", but the "education", "environmental policy", "immigration" or "social security" are not economic problems, but political one. Also, the pro-democrat bias is obvious; the economists wasn't able to cross the borders of their "mind frame"... Anyway, who is responsible for all economics decisions in last 20 years? Are there only "republican" economists in the circles of political advisers? And if majority of economists are democrats, the proof of their incompetence is evident. Shortly, there is time to Change, and nor Obama, nor McCain are this Change.

Comment from Treetrunk123

WedPMPDTE_Rthth

I noticed my previous post got two votes. I appreciate the feedback. I won't be posting as much on this site, but I just wanted to say that the study was very professional and comprehensive. It would serve both political parties to take a look at this piece and learn how they are perceived.

Comment from DCat

WedPMPDTE_Rthth

First, thank you for doing this study. Second, it struck me as interesting that 20% of the Republican economists said Obama would do a better job, where as only 12% of the Democratic economists said McCain would do a better job. I wished someone could tell me whether it was really the case that the Republicans were more likely than the Democrats to say the other side's nominee would do a better job, or if this was just random noise. Then I realized I was someone: Okay, if I'm doing a normal approximation to a binomial distribution correctly (and it's been a while), then there is only a little less than 1 chance in 10 of getting this big of a difference from random noise. What that means, I'll leave up to you.

Comment from jell

WedPMPDTE_Rthth

Dude. The data "are". The datum "is". So let it be written. So let it be done.

Comment from Fire@will

WedPMPDTE_Rthth

I still don't know whether to laugh or cry! But thanks for doing this...

Comment from olivaw

WedPMPDTE_Rthth

As an economist, I find a number of the reactions to this survey very curious. First, in general what economists agree on most of all is a framework for evaluating government policy. Notions such as efficiency, equity, market failure, market equilibrium, and benefit-cost analysis are regarded as useful ways of thinking about the economy and possible policy interventions. Second, most economists I know are not highly partisan. This is in part because most economists like most people have other interests than partisan politics. But it is also because studying economics tends to lead towards having somewhat complicated views on issues that often cross party orthodoxy. So, most Democratic economists tend to be moderate Democrats, and most Republican economists are moderate Republicans. Third, the notion that somehow being an economist would lead you inevitably to support a certain candidate is strange. Economists in many cases might largely agree on the framework for evaluating a policy. They might even agree on the policy's effects. But how to value the disparate effects relies in many cases on subjective values, about which economics as a profession has little useful to say (try philosophy). So, for example, for many policies economists might agree that the policy should be evaluated in terms of its effects on efficiency (the size of the economic pie) and equity (how equally the pie is distributed). In some cases, economists might even agree on the approximate size of these efficiency and equity effects. However, if the policy increases efficiency but decreases equity, or decreases efficiency but increases equity, there is NOTHING in economics that tells you what relative value you should place on efficiency vs. equity, and therefore what you should choose. In general, I suspect the economists who favor Obama tend to have a greater relative weight on equity vs. efficiency compared to economists who favor McCain. Both groups might agree that both efficiency and equity are important, but they disagree PHILOSOPHICALLY (outside of their training as economists) on the relative importance of these two social values.

Comment from jackjumper

WedPMPDTE_Rthth

I wonder if the priorities would have been the same if you did the survey this week...

Comment from Mudley

WedPMPDTE_Rthth

When it comes to heath care, I wish the survey distinguished between increased coverage and reining in inflation. My personal sense is that the latter is far more important, and I think that is what many of the economists were thinking, but I think most people will believe they were supporting the former (increased coverage).

Comment from deirdres

WedPMPDTE_Rthth

Well, it is interesting to know that economists vote party lines, and they probably think and argue that way as well. We all see what we want to see. Might be useful to try to find a control group of economists, e.g. non-US citizens, to see who they think would be best. The Economist magazine gives an endorsement at every election, but it's hard to know which editorial voice that's coming from. To my mind, in this election both sides want to do expensive things - McCain, stay in Iraq; Obama, universal health care. Personally, I'd rather be spending public money on health care, but both points may be moot, given the state of the economy today and in the likely near future. All these billions in bail out money will have to come from somewhere, we're already up to our eyeballs in national debt, so whoever is elected will have little choice but to raise taxes, and won't get to spend them on either of their big ideas.