Liberals have a poor understanding of economics and, thus, should not be entrusted with running the country.
That's the grand conclusion reached by George Mason University economics professor Daniel B. Klein in a recent Wall Street Journal commentary. Too bad the professor reached that conclusion using analytical methods unworthy of a callow undergrad.
One of the most important things I learned 25 years ago while studying for my master's degree in International Relations was to not take statistical analysis on face value. Numbers don't always lie, but they are all too frequently massaged to support the analyst's preconceived notions. Here's what Klein did with the numbers from a Zogby International survey of 4,835 American adults...
Klein presented eight assertions and asked members of the survey group if they agreed or disagreed with them and too what degree. Here are the assertions and the response Klein defined as wrong:
• Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable (Disagreement is wrong).
• Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (Disagreement is wrong).
• Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (Disagreement is wrong).
• Rent control leads to housing shortages (Disagreement is wrong).
• A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (Agreement is wrong).
• Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (Agreement is wrong).
• Free trade leads to unemployment (Agreement is wrong).
• Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (Disagreement is wrong).
The result? People identifying themselves as libertarians or conservative generally got all but one or two of the questions "right." Liberals and progressives generally got five or more answers "wrong."
From this, Klein deduced that conservatives are "better informed about the policy choices facing the country" and he warned:
To begin with, his presumption that all eight assertions are unambiguously true is, shall we say, presumptuous. I will agree with him that anyone who equates a monopoly with market dominance and who still thinks rent control is a great idea probably has not been paying attention. But some of the other statements are more values-laden and, while factual, do not tell the whole story.
For instance, licensing of professional services probably does raise the cost of those services, but that may be because licensing excludes charlatans who would lure consumers with cheap prices and then deliver poor service. Restrictions on housing development do generally drive up housing costs but may also create value by preserving farmland and wild spaces, which some would consider a good thing.
Technically, many liberals got those wrong, but they may be right that licensing and zoning laws are sound public policy.
Other assertions leave room for reasonable quibbling. Yes, the standard of living by conventional measures is higher now than it was 30 years ago, but a liberal might note that the rise is dependent on two-worker households that have seen their incomes stagnate over the last decade. Free trade may increase employment overall, but some American workers, unquestionably, are dislocated by open competition. Third World workers making products for American companies are probably, as a whole, better off than their countrymen, but there are many examples of awful working conditions at foreign companies that contract for work with U.S. businesses. It's a bit much to contend that anyone who sees a big gray area on this issue is an economic knucklehead.
Klein acknowledges that the eight statements do not "challenge the political sensibilities of conservatives and libertarians" the way they do liberals. Clearly, a number of liberals were answering from their gut, not their brain. But Klein fails to acknowledge that, because the statements reinforce the way conservatives and libertarians see the world, they may also be answering with their gut rather than from superior knowledge of economics.
Klein's survey proves nothing but the obvious fact that many people answer questions based on their pre-conceived notions. It would be easy to create a different set of statements skewed toward liberal views that could make conservatives look uninformed. For instance:
• Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction at the time of the American invasion.
• Saddam Hussein had no connection to the attacks on September 11, 2001.
• Victory, along the lines of the victory over Nazi Germany, cannot be achieved in Afghanistan.
• Fighting terrorists over there does not mean we won't have to fight them here.
• The U.S. banking system would have collapsed in 2008 if government had not stepped in.
• Excluding Social Security and Medicare, the contribution of welfare programs to the federal deficit is tiny compared to the cost of the military.
• If allowed to continue over the next decade, tax cuts for the wealthy will drive up the deficit far more than bank bailouts, stimulus packages and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
Following Klein's lead, I could make a strong argument that, if a person disagrees with these assertions, his connection to reality is minimal and he should not be allowed to run the country. And really, don't these issues have far more to do with "the policy choices facing the country," in Klein's words, than the topics in the professor's economics quiz? (Is rent control on anyone's national crisis list?)
Another important rule I learned in grad' school was that something is not true just because you agree with it. I fight that very human tendency ever day. It's easy to latch on to the latest wild revelation flying through cyberspace -- such as Klein's survey -- to reinforce what one wants to believe. This phenomenon contributes to the extreme partisanship that has overtaken political discourse in the country. We no longer just agree to disagree with our fellow citizens, we insist they are fools and dupes, if not subversives and traitors, who want to drive the nation to ruin.
As someone on the center-left, I miss the style of that great conservative, William F. Buckley, who could challenge and change my ideas with his intellectual brilliance and civilized discourse. I even miss Ronald Reagan who stayed friends with his political adversaries, adapted his strong beliefs to new realities and partnered with an "enemy," Mikhail Gorbachev, to make the world a better and safer place.
Those were conservatives with whom I could disagree, yet find common ground. I can't say the same for the many arrogant, rude ideologues who claim to be their heirs. I can easily imagine the depth of their glee at discovering "proof" that liberals are just plain stupid.
That's the grand conclusion reached by George Mason University economics professor Daniel B. Klein in a recent Wall Street Journal commentary. Too bad the professor reached that conclusion using analytical methods unworthy of a callow undergrad.
One of the most important things I learned 25 years ago while studying for my master's degree in International Relations was to not take statistical analysis on face value. Numbers don't always lie, but they are all too frequently massaged to support the analyst's preconceived notions. Here's what Klein did with the numbers from a Zogby International survey of 4,835 American adults...
Klein presented eight assertions and asked members of the survey group if they agreed or disagreed with them and too what degree. Here are the assertions and the response Klein defined as wrong:
• Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable (Disagreement is wrong).
• Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (Disagreement is wrong).
• Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (Disagreement is wrong).
• Rent control leads to housing shortages (Disagreement is wrong).
• A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (Agreement is wrong).
• Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (Agreement is wrong).
• Free trade leads to unemployment (Agreement is wrong).
• Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (Disagreement is wrong).
The result? People identifying themselves as libertarians or conservative generally got all but one or two of the questions "right." Liberals and progressives generally got five or more answers "wrong."
From this, Klein deduced that conservatives are "better informed about the policy choices facing the country" and he warned:
Governmental power joined with wrongheadedness is something terrible, but all too common. Realizing that many of our leaders and their constituents are economically unenlightened sheds light on the troubles that surround us.As the esteemed George Will would say (while sighing deeply), "Well...." Here are a few things about Klein's analysis and conclusion that are misleading.
To begin with, his presumption that all eight assertions are unambiguously true is, shall we say, presumptuous. I will agree with him that anyone who equates a monopoly with market dominance and who still thinks rent control is a great idea probably has not been paying attention. But some of the other statements are more values-laden and, while factual, do not tell the whole story.
For instance, licensing of professional services probably does raise the cost of those services, but that may be because licensing excludes charlatans who would lure consumers with cheap prices and then deliver poor service. Restrictions on housing development do generally drive up housing costs but may also create value by preserving farmland and wild spaces, which some would consider a good thing.
Technically, many liberals got those wrong, but they may be right that licensing and zoning laws are sound public policy.
Other assertions leave room for reasonable quibbling. Yes, the standard of living by conventional measures is higher now than it was 30 years ago, but a liberal might note that the rise is dependent on two-worker households that have seen their incomes stagnate over the last decade. Free trade may increase employment overall, but some American workers, unquestionably, are dislocated by open competition. Third World workers making products for American companies are probably, as a whole, better off than their countrymen, but there are many examples of awful working conditions at foreign companies that contract for work with U.S. businesses. It's a bit much to contend that anyone who sees a big gray area on this issue is an economic knucklehead.
Klein acknowledges that the eight statements do not "challenge the political sensibilities of conservatives and libertarians" the way they do liberals. Clearly, a number of liberals were answering from their gut, not their brain. But Klein fails to acknowledge that, because the statements reinforce the way conservatives and libertarians see the world, they may also be answering with their gut rather than from superior knowledge of economics.
Klein's survey proves nothing but the obvious fact that many people answer questions based on their pre-conceived notions. It would be easy to create a different set of statements skewed toward liberal views that could make conservatives look uninformed. For instance:
• Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction at the time of the American invasion.
• Saddam Hussein had no connection to the attacks on September 11, 2001.
• Victory, along the lines of the victory over Nazi Germany, cannot be achieved in Afghanistan.
• Fighting terrorists over there does not mean we won't have to fight them here.
• The U.S. banking system would have collapsed in 2008 if government had not stepped in.
• Excluding Social Security and Medicare, the contribution of welfare programs to the federal deficit is tiny compared to the cost of the military.
• If allowed to continue over the next decade, tax cuts for the wealthy will drive up the deficit far more than bank bailouts, stimulus packages and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
Following Klein's lead, I could make a strong argument that, if a person disagrees with these assertions, his connection to reality is minimal and he should not be allowed to run the country. And really, don't these issues have far more to do with "the policy choices facing the country," in Klein's words, than the topics in the professor's economics quiz? (Is rent control on anyone's national crisis list?)
Another important rule I learned in grad' school was that something is not true just because you agree with it. I fight that very human tendency ever day. It's easy to latch on to the latest wild revelation flying through cyberspace -- such as Klein's survey -- to reinforce what one wants to believe. This phenomenon contributes to the extreme partisanship that has overtaken political discourse in the country. We no longer just agree to disagree with our fellow citizens, we insist they are fools and dupes, if not subversives and traitors, who want to drive the nation to ruin.
As someone on the center-left, I miss the style of that great conservative, William F. Buckley, who could challenge and change my ideas with his intellectual brilliance and civilized discourse. I even miss Ronald Reagan who stayed friends with his political adversaries, adapted his strong beliefs to new realities and partnered with an "enemy," Mikhail Gorbachev, to make the world a better and safer place.
Those were conservatives with whom I could disagree, yet find common ground. I can't say the same for the many arrogant, rude ideologues who claim to be their heirs. I can easily imagine the depth of their glee at discovering "proof" that liberals are just plain stupid.
No comments:
Post a Comment