The American Spectator : Ignorance Is Liberal Bliss

Text Size

Ignorance Is Liberal Bliss

By Ron Ross on 6.24.10 @ 6:07AM

Cluelessness has never enjoyed greater appeal.

A Zogby International survey has confirmed what I’ve long suspected — when it comes to economics, liberals are clueless. The survey of 4,835 respondents was designed by Daniel Klein, an economics professor at George Mason University, and Zeljka Buturorvic, a research associate at Zogby International.

The survey asked respondents to self-identify as progressive/very liberal, liberal, moderate, conservative, very conservative, libertarian, and not sure. On the basis of eight economic questions, wrong answers correlated consistently and significantly with ideology. Progressive/very liberal respondents got four times more wrong answers than libertarians.

The survey results demonstrate the strong connection between economic ignorance and interventionist enthusiasm. Those who are most determined to interfere with the economy know the least about it. Conversely, knowledge leads to humility. The more you know about the economy the more reluctant you’ll be to try to fix it. You realize “fixing” is not as easy or as simple as it appears. Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread.

When I taught economics, a quote I would sometimes put on the course syllabus was this: “In relation to social questions, the concept of an interdependent system has two important implications: that things are the way they are for some powerful reason or reasons, which have to be understood if effective social solutions are to be devised; and that any social solutions so devised and applied will have repercussions elsewhere, which will have to be faced and which ought to be taken into account.”

The quote is from a lecture, “The Economics Approach to Social Questions,” by the late brilliant and prolific University of Chicago economist Harry G. Johnson. Liberals don’t seem to care that “things are the way they are for some very powerful reason or reasons.” Johnson’s observation is a concise explanation of why unintended consequences are so common and why results are so often the opposite of intentions. Johnson did not say we should never attempt to change things, he was just saying we ought to know a little something about what we’re doing before we do.

What’s always amazed me is that liberals don’t seem to be even the least bit curious about how the economy works. They love taking and using the wealth created by a market economy, but don’t care a whit about the necessary ingredients for creating that wealth — incentives, the price system, or the critical role of private property rights, for example. They all but come out and say, “I don’t know the first thing about economics, and I’m proud of it!” They despise the market economy and, therefore, don’t want be corrupted by knowing anything about it.

Liberals’ ignorance of economics is deliberate. They are intent on a certain agenda and being reminded of such things as “unintended consequences” or “what happens next?” would spoil their fun. For liberals there is a negative payoff for knowing about the complexities of the economy. They have no real incentive for learning about economics. “My mind’s made up. Don’t bother me with the facts.” In a recent column Thomas Sowell observed, “Those who are convinced that the government should ‘do something’ when the economy has a problem almost never bother to find out what actually happens when the government intervenes.”

Another important reason for the left’s disregard for economic understanding is their almost exclusive focus on intentions rather than results. Minimum wage laws, for example, are intended to increase the incomes of low income workers. The actual result, of course, is just the opposite. Such laws reduce employment opportunities and, therefore, increase unemployment. Minimum wage laws result in zero income for anyone whose job opportunities disappear. Liberalism is not an evidence-based vision of reality. Wishful thinking is as close as they ever get to real thinking.

I couldn’t count the times I have been astonished by the abysmal economic ignorance I’ve seen displayed by politicians. It would be interesting to know how many congressmen have ever taken a single course in economics. If Barack Obama ever took an economics course, he does a good job of hiding it.

The main problem with liberals’ economic ignorance is the issue of “externalities.” Liberals aren’t just indulging their misguided policies in some harmless video game, they’re imposing them on the rest of us. Virtually all of us, for example, will be suffer from their abominable Obamacare.

What we’re seeing all too often is “the arrogance of ignorance.” Both arrogance and ignorance do enormous damage in the world, but together they are a toxic brew.

When it suits their purposes liberals do emphasize repercussions in complex systems. They tell us, for example, that increases in carbon dioxide are heating the planet with disastrous long-range consequences. They believe that the Earth’s atmosphere is in a delicate equilibrium and that driving an SUV could destroy that equilibrium. You can mess with the economy all you want, but don’t mess with the atmosphere or the ecosystem!

About the Author

Ron Ross Ph.D. is an economist who lives in Arcata, California. He is the author of The Unbeatable Market. Reach him at rossecon@gmail.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (102) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Kitty| 6.24.10 @ 6:32AM

For years now I've been asking if liberals/progressives are ignorant or evil. You've proven they are both.

Anne| 6.24.10 @ 12:30PM

Kitty, to ignorant/evil I would also add intolerant. The real problem is that they KNOW they are wrong and absolutely will not admit to it. So they argue, ignore facts, curse, call names, change the subject anything to avoid the fact that they are wrong and they know this is true.

SeattleBruce| 6.25.10 @ 3:54AM

"they argue, ignore facts, curse, call names, change the subject anything to avoid the fact that they are wrong and they know this is true. "

Add to this ridicule - one of their cherished rules for radicals. I'm sick of it, and ready to ridicule them for their dearth of facts. Anyone in? :)

Pete from Florida| 7.30.10 @ 8:26PM

The new definition of the word BIGOT is: (n) a conservative in the process of winning an argument with a liberal.

FTM| 6.25.10 @ 5:24AM

I don't know if liberals are ignorant or evil but because they "care" about whatever the problem is they "feel" that they are morally superior to someone that doesn't share their condition. To the Liberal Caring and Feeling are more important than Knowing.

Mike| 6.26.10 @ 12:37AM

Most liberals have never made a profit. That is worked in the productive sector of our economy on their own. They are typically union members, government workers, professors, activists and the like. Having never been responsible for the bottom line of a business or had to face real budgets and short falls they just can't close the wallet and stop writing checks. So they lack real life experience which teaches us to be conservative and in control.

Tyler S.| 6.26.10 @ 4:01PM

What a crock, the researchers ask 8 agree or disagree questions, then rate the answers based on what they believe to be the correct answer. This isn't an economic knowledge test, this is literally a "how much do you think like we do" test. Nor are 8 questions enough to accurately gauge someone's economic knowledge. Hell, the authors even state in the abstract that one of the problems with the survey is "an asymmetry in sometimes challenging leftist mentalities without ever specifically challenging conservative and libertarian mentalities." I mean how could liberals help but do worse on a test that only challenges leftist mentalities? This survey is a joke, and your giddy, masturbatory fixations on the outcome of it is pathetic.

standlaws| 6.27.10 @ 11:15PM

struck a nerve!

Andrew P.| 9.9.11 @ 3:42PM

Tyler, you nailed it! i love reading these conservative comment then going to the liberal side and reading their comments, which are always rooted in fact and not personal belief

Vincent Mohan| 6.24.10 @ 6:47AM

The attitude that liberals have of not knowing anyhing about economics and being proud of it is reminiscent of the Southern slave holding class prior to the Civil War. They felt that trade was beneath them and left it to the Yankees and foreigners to run the economy. We all know how well that worked for them.

Appleby| 6.24.10 @ 6:54AM

Not unlike the British Gentlemen Class who left business to the Jews, and then spent the next 50 years whining that the Jews controlled all the money.

Joseph Sule| 6.25.10 @ 11:20AM

Have any of you know-it-alls ever read a single piece of historic literature about the economic abuses of early corporations, the industrial age, child labor practices, sweat shops? Do you nostalgically long for a return to those "good old days"?

Do you actually believe for one minute, that we would not still be in the middle of those times if legislative intervention had not stepped in? Is your premise that "free markets would eventually work its way through those times"?

Now who is the naive one? Who has their head in the sand? Is the abollishment of all laws the end result you long for?

"Murder would not happen if the free market system worked through that without intervention. Slavery would abolish itself out of the inherent goodness of men's souls. Traffic laws are an obstacle to good travel. Why can't we return to them boom bust cycles I read about in my social studies classes?..."

Wake up! I know a great many learned individuals with excellent economic backgrounds who are still "Liberals" because they see through the pretenses being perpetuated by the 3% who own 97% to keep the 97% in their places!!! Who are really the stoic keepers of Orwell's Ministry of Truth's slogan, "Ignorance is Strength"?

Three cheers for the villain (who everybody knows was really the hero) of Les Miserables!!!

Wake up! Intelligent regulation that painstakingly balances negative

CommonSense| 6.26.10 @ 10:42PM

Of course some regulation is necessary. For example, the law saying you can't kill people is a good one. The problem arises when the common sense stops, and the liberalism comes in. Thats when you get regulations that say if you punch someone because they are gay, then you must hate them, so you should get more time in jail. Correct me if I'm wrong, but how often do people get punched by people who don't hate them? If someone punches you, its not because they have affection for you. And as a straight man why is the punishment for punching me in the face less than it would be if you punched a gay man in the face? Are gay people's faces more sensitive? Am I supposed to feel better after I get punched because I'm supposed to think "Well at least I'm not gay! It would been a lot worse if I was gay and punched in the face!" This example right here shows the transition from common sense regulation to liberal "feel-good" regulation.

No intelligent person would argue that we shouldn't have a government, and no one would argue that the government shouldn't regulate some things. What we are saying is that the best level of regulation is the lowest possible level to maximize freedom.

Should there be laws saying you can't make your 5 year old work 18 hours a day in your factory? Yes! Should we have laws that allow an employee to sue his employer if his employer calls him a name? No.

Common sense man, common sense.

Gail| 6.26.10 @ 10:50PM

One more question for Joseph: why has Fannie and Freddie been given a free pass by this government? Is it because the government's poor management caused the problems and therefore it is not a problem. Seriously, you need to open your eyes before it is too late...there are bad guys on both sides of the equation. Corruption is a human condition, that when residing within a corporation we have the power to not purchase from that company which I have done with GE, but when it is in our government it is far more nefarious and much harder to fix when it becomes rooted.

Andrew P.| 9.9.11 @ 3:53PM

LMAO, if you punch someone in the face because they are gay, and you don't hate them, then why did you punch them? your logic here is skewed. and its called a hate crime, for good reason, because there are a lot of people with closed minds to those who are different, just read any comments thread and you will see how offended people are of others who disagree with their beliefs and views.

Gail| 6.26.10 @ 10:43PM

For Joseph Sule: Perhaps you need to wake up. No one has said regulation is not necessary, but what is evident is that the government cannot and will not regulate bad intentions out of people. If someone wants to game the system and break the rules he will find a way. This government thinks everytime a rule is broke another 2000 pages of regulations will cure it. It is nonsense and it will bring the economic sector of our country to a slow death crawl. That Joseph is what the liberals do not understand, and that Joseph is exactly why our economy today refuses to get back to the business of running the economic engine of this country. One more thing: research Shore Bank in Chicago and you will find that the very people you think are going to save you are in the process of picking the meat off you your carcas as we speak. The Clintons and Obama have strong ties to Shore Bank. Check it out. It's one more reason why government should not stray too far into the business of business.

Faffnir| 6.24.10 @ 6:56AM

Dr. Ross:
If our feckless leader ever took a course in economics, you can rest assured it was from a Marxist perspective. People have always been envious of great wealth, but it was only with the Marxist/Populist philosophies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that this was transformed into outright hatred of anyone who amassed wealth by easing the burdens of his fellow man, whether through building railroads, industries or invention. From my own experience I have observed this phenomena and it is sad that the most ignorant of economic reality are the farthest left.

JimH| 6.24.10 @ 8:18AM

As we have learned sometimes there are things that you don't know that you don't know. I recently came across an interesting word, Anosognosia. It seems that there are people who are to dumb to realize just how dumb they are. Interesting link: http://opinionator.blogs.nytim.....emma-1/?hp

Fred D.| 6.25.10 @ 12:11AM

The same was said of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It was a great help to our side that the Soviets had such an incompetent economic system. If their system had been as good as ours, it would have be a lot more difficult for Reagan to bankrupt Gorbachev. China was worse with Mao.'s perpetual revolution and backyard industry. I'm not so sure it will work well for us the Deng Xiao Ping realized Mao's economic incompetence and changed their system for the better.

Pointy Head| 6.24.10 @ 8:26AM

For years I've taught that "ecology"was a misspelling of "econony" and the same equations could and should be used. I also point out that humanity is part of the ecology and many "tree huggers" hate people.

sbark| 6.24.10 @ 8:28AM

really......are the RINO's any better? Maybe by a few degree's, but are just as willing to forgo thought in return for votes.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 6.24.10 @ 10:13AM

Possibly, you don’t know the definition of RINO - republi-kon in name only. I don’t think you’ll find many RINO fans here. RINOs are nothing more than pigs in sheep clothing. That drove of porkers can justifiably be blamed for many of the woes OUR nation now faces.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
“You can put wings on a pig, but you don't make it an eagle.” - Bill Clinton
But I can make them fly. I actually quoted hilly’s horny hubby.
Only 941 days to go.

American Militias| 6.26.10 @ 9:16AM

I have the sneaking suspicion you won't have to wait 941 days for this to come to an end.......

Pete from Florida| 7.30.10 @ 8:32PM

No! RINO's are actually worse. They masquerade as Republicans and by association convervative, when they are only in the game for the power, the longevity and whatever else they can scam. RINO's gotta go on election day.

gearjammer| 6.24.10 @ 8:34AM

You meanies just don't appreciate " emotional IQ ". Get in touch with your feelings, inner child and all of that good stuff. Do some drugs and start listening to the Beatles again-play Imagine 24/7 and you will be on your way to appreciating our liberal friends true wisdom. Mostly, just learn how to totally disengage and destroy the concept of reality.

JimH| 6.24.10 @ 8:44AM

Glad I still have my LPs. You can't play an MP3 backwards and get all the secret messages.

Richard Baker| 6.24.10 @ 8:59AM

JimH:
So Paul IS dead?

Bill| 6.24.10 @ 9:35AM

"Econony?"

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.24.10 @ 9:43AM

Mr. Ross
Excellent column. You also happened to use one of my favorite phrases..."the arrogance of ignorance".

I use it the way I first heard it: "arrogant ignorance".
We see it written in the comments here every day.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 6.24.10 @ 9:49AM

the incompetent-in-charge has studied two influential economic treatises:
“Das Kapital: Kritik der politischen Ökonomie” (1867), an extensive treatise on political economy written in German by Karl Marx and edited in part by Friedrich Engels; and “Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei” (1848) written by communist theorists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The genius of Karl notwithstanding my favorite Marxist remains Groucho.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
“I read in the newspapers they are going to have 30 minutes of intellectual stuff on television every Monday from 7:30 to 8. to educate America. They couldn't educate America if they started at 6:30.” - Groucho Marx
Only 941 days to go

John II| 6.24.10 @ 9:53PM

Marx relied on Engels's commentary on the condition of the workers in England, which was already discredited in its detail and methodology by the time Marx started scribbling Das Kapital. Our Incompetent-in-Charge MAY have perused the Manifesto when he was yawning his way through college on this or that affirmative-action arrangement, but there is no way Professor Obama, late of Harvard, could have ever summoned the patience for the colossally soporific Das Kapital, much less found the discipline to examine its premises minutely.

He is the Incompetent-in-Charge because, like his entire retinue, he is also and primarily the Fraud-in-Charge.

Sheila| 6.24.10 @ 10:00AM

"Tribalism + democracy + stupidity = racist idiocracy" (ht Ferdinand Bardamu at In Mala Fide).

rufus levin| 6.24.10 @ 10:03AM

That is why liberals cannot laugh at themselves EVER. As an economics major in 1963, I always loved the comment, "If you laid ALL the Economists in the world end-to-end...they still would never reach a conclusion." While it seemed at first to be a critical comment about economists...it was a commentary on the art and pseudo-science of economics....whenever one makes mathematical models of how the society works through exchanges of value, it loses the most important feature that is not quantifiable, the variations in sociology and culture.

This is why so many folks that never graduated from high school were able to become rich and successful...they merely worked hard at some good idea in a favorable period of time.

John Navratil| 6.24.10 @ 5:12PM

Mr. Levin,

As you state, Economics was called a dismal science precisely because it attempted to measure the behaviour of the crowd. Microeconomics (Econ 101) is the study of individuals reactions to markets, while Macroeconomics is the study of the entire economy and relations to other economies. (No disagreement, just adding to your text).

It's a bit like the weather, a very large system with a lot of randomness. Still a simple man with a plow knew enough about the weather to make a living.

The hard working high school drop-out really only has a chance in a free market... unless he is politically connected.

Petronius| 6.24.10 @ 11:27AM

libtard economics 101: 3 words; have, get, benefit.
School's out. The libtard then juxtaposes those 3 words with his situation. He views the world as a sandbox, government as mommy, and his successful betters as mortal enemies. Ergo, Capitalism and it's most horrible manifestation, the corporation, must be crushed. Because at root, the Liberal leftists are Babies. The existence of commerce requires them to WORK to obtain those things necessary for good living, and that they compete to establish and maintain themselves in society. They call this "oppression."
And all for want of a trust fund.
Bottom line. Any person without understanding of the U.S. and state Constitutions, and of market economics and the dynamics thereof, shall not vote nor participate in the functions of state. If the ignorant, indolent, incompetent, infantile weenies refuse to grow up, they must be forced to take themselves and their character deficiencies elsewhere.

Greg| 6.24.10 @ 11:35AM

Yep.....facts or common sense have never been plugged into the Liberal's decision making process. I have determined that Liberals live in a state of permanent suspension of disbelief.

Big Leo| 6.24.10 @ 11:37AM

My father taught us economics long before I had it in college. First, I had a paper route-- at the age of eight. At twelve, I was given two acres of plowed ground (he threw in the plowing free the first year) and the proprietorship of the vegetable stand in front of the house. I made a lot of money. Today, the old beast would probably be charged with child abuse.

Al Adab| 6.24.10 @ 11:54AM

Ken, Gill:

RR said the trouble with liberals is not that they are ignorant, but just that they know so much that isn't true.

The Faith of the Left in their own superiority to us plebs is never to be underestimated. Thomas Sowell's "Vision of the Annointed" is the book on point.

PolishKnight| 6.24.10 @ 12:27PM

I've started a conflict on amspec before about this issue, but I disagree with the fiscal conservative premise that minimum wage laws "hurt" low wage workers. For starters, the current minimum wage is so low that it's irrelevent. So what are unethical employers and fiscal conservatives doing? Looking the other way at illegal immigrant hiring and the effects it has on crime and the cost to the taxpayers. Such businesses and conservatives are engaging in the same "free market" economic practices that chemical companies a century ago engaged in by dumping their waste into community drinking water.

The argument many free-market/darwinist style economists make that teenagers are unemployed because poor businesses can't pay so many minimum wage workers when it goes up half a buck is laughable. Wages are just a fraction of a business's overall expense sheet and since those expenses would go up across the board, the consumer overall would see a fraction of that increase at the counter. So if a cup of coffee goes from $2 to 2.10, will that really cause massive unemployment and business failures?

ON THE OTHER HAND, fiscal/darwin economic conservatives rarely ask the other question: What's the impact of massively overpaid CEO's on a corporation's bottom line? Shouldn't there be an impact to the consumers as well as employment when, say, Carly Fiorina lays off thousands of workers but walks off with several million out of her private jet, hmmm? Couldn't she run HP into the ground with a lesser salary and flying commercially?

Hmmm, that leads to one of my favorite super-unPC points: If economies have to balance, what about the feminist and women's equality idea that women should all get paid at least as much as men for the same work, but still be able to marry up? Would that perhaps explain why so many career women, including conservative career women, wind up childless and population rates for the middle class plummet in most westernized nations?

wolf| 6.24.10 @ 1:36PM

"...Wages are just a fraction of a business's overall expense sheet and since those expenses would go up across the board, the consumer overall would see a fraction of that increase at the counter..."

that fraction is approx 45-60% in most cases...

the min wage is just that...there are workers that are not even worth paying that rate..sad but true..it was not designed to be a "living wage" ... but due to factors as the decline in education standards and effectiveness and illegal aliens filling low/no skilled jobs...now the min wage becomes more of a battle ground then ever before as its becomes the benchmark for the ability to take care of a family-which it never was designed to do-just as social security was not designed to be a retirement fund..

Solipslip| 6.24.10 @ 4:03PM

"Wages are just a fraction of a business's overall expense sheet.."

No need to read your posts any longer. You're to stupid to know your stupidity.

John Navratil| 6.24.10 @ 5:52PM

PolishKnight,

You state "the current minimum wage is so low that it's irrelevent". If it were irrelevant, there would be no unemployed. You argument assumes everyone is worth that minimum. My friend's autistic child who could easily work "in the back" at Kroger, for example. The minimum wage is a restriction on the freedom to contract and is merely a price control, the likes of which worked so poorly for Nixon and in the communist command economies. Studies have concluded that poorly educated inner-city children who are enticed from school by a wage increase are the very ones who are displaced by the next round of minimum wage increases.

Your example of "free market" economic practices that chemical companies a century ago engaged in by dumping their waste into community drinking water is not related. This is the concept of externalities. The inversion of this example is the free service a fruit farmer gets from the bees which pollinate his tree. Regulations have a place in the free market and internalizing the cost of externalies is one; it makes the price and cost (two different things) plain.

If "teenagers are unemployed because poor businesses can't pay so many minimum wage workers when it goes up half a buck" is so laughable, perhaps we should raise the minimum wage to $50. Is that ridiculous? Is it only because it's $.50 that it's laughable? Where does it stop being laughable? As to "if a cup of coffee goes from $2 to 2.10, will that really cause massive unemployment and business failures"? Ask Starbucks and McDonalds. It appears so.

Of course Carly Fiorina could have impacted HP at a lesser cost. She could have volunteered her time and cycled to work if she wanted to. But unless she was holding a gun to someone's head I'd have to say the relationship suited both sides and each got what they deserved. This is your price control argument again (BTW, I'm not a big fan of Fiorina's performance at HP).

Finally, you postulate that population rates plummet for the middle class in most westernized (I presume you mean Western) nations. Well the highest Total Fertility Rate is in the U.S. at 2.1 (just enough to sustain) but it is in the tank in the social-democrat bastion of Europe. Could it be that the price controls which keep their unemployment so high make children more expensive than people wish to afford. France has been subsidizing motherhood for years and it's not good enough. Now they are raising their retirement age to --GASP!-- 62 so that the few children around won't bolt the country before they pay of their parents.

Command economies have yet to succeed.

james| 6.24.10 @ 12:45PM

One of the eternal mysteries of the world will be how massively stupid people attained and maintained sway over so many for so long. I admit I don't have an answer, except that politically and economically stupid people also tend to be aggressively stupid; literate people tend to be busy and wake up to find that "the most active communist" (as Stalin was known) had somehow assumed control of the post office.

Petronius| 6.24.10 @ 3:42PM

j
I beg to differ. The 3 Stooges run the Post Office. The craft employees know all the scripts.
nyuk x 3

RichardK| 6.24.10 @ 12:49PM

I am a die hard libertarian who use to think that all "liberals" were economically stupid. But now that I see that liberals retiring in the Illinois school system with over $10million in pension benefits. I am not so certain. If someone would have told me 20 years ago ("Hey, work for the govt and get a pension at 55 years of age - maybe 2 govt. pensions. If you become an entreprenuer in the private sector, you take a risk and may lose your investment and not pay yourself. Even if you are sucessful, the govt. sector is going to tax you at a rate of 50% or more during the good years and allow you to suffer in the bad years. Why take the risk?"

Of course, eventually the whole system will collaspe - just like in Greece. But - if the whole system collaspes, it will collaspe on the govt. employee and the entreprenuer.

I still believe that liberals who are not part of the govt. system are very economically stupid. But those that are part of the system, are they really that economically stupid?

Nate| 6.24.10 @ 1:11PM

What about all the professional economists who argue that Obama's stimulus bill prevented the economy from sliding into a depression?

Are they "ignorant" of economics too? Was Keynes "ignorant" of economics?

Ray| 6.24.10 @ 1:28PM

"Are they "ignorant" of economics too? Was Keynes "ignorant" of economics?"

Yes, obviously, because we're now in a depression, which is defined as a recession that lasts more than two or three years. (this recession started in 2007, more than three years ago.) Are we out of the "recession?" No. Will we be out of the "recession" with the next year? No, not even Obama claims this will happen.

Ok, then we're currently in a depression that will last at least until 2012, correct? So, how did Obama actually prevent the depression that is currently occurring?

Anthony| 6.24.10 @ 3:47PM

Keynes, towards the end of his life, repudiated most if not all of his government spending to stimulate the economy theories.
And like most leftist elites, he dismissed the carnage he created with a wave of the hand. Sort of like the Princetonian stooge, Paul Erlich, and his population bomb, bomb.
Of course, the left isn't about to admit that Keynes' theories, which grant them licence to grow government, is all B.S. Nope, Keynes is now a dead useful idiot, the best kind.
"The Road to Serfdom", by the Austrian economist Frederick Hayek, is a must read. As Shakespeare mused, the past is prologue.

Al Adab| 6.24.10 @ 4:05PM

Ray, Anthony:

Road to Serfdom is a must. Depression/recession is over MSM says so. All that means is the current economic condition is the new norm or baseline. They want it to stay this way making them the controllers (in both senses) of the American economy. Everyone is dependant on Govt. for their incomes hence they must follow and obey. No room for Free men at the trough.

Margie| 6.24.10 @ 7:49PM

At least they can't take away the God given freedom {{inside!}}

Al Adab| 6.24.10 @ 7:54PM

Hi Margie,

You are right that our true Freedom is internal, a gift from God. It is that condition which our founders knew and which our government is organized to respect and protect. When any government becomes destructive of those ends... well you know the rest.

Good to hear from you.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 6.24.10 @ 7:34PM

Some years ago Readers’ Digest published a condensed version of Frederick Hayek’s "The Road to Serfdom". I found it at numerous websites for free download as a pdf using a simple google search. Those interested should kindly do the same, or if you are so bold, simply email me a request with "The Road to Serfdom" in the subject line and by reply I’ll attach a copy of mine. Hope I’m not in violation of any copyright.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
“The study of economy usually shows us that the best time for purchase was last year.” - Woody Allen
Only 941 days to go.

Nick| 6.25.10 @ 8:46PM

Nate,

"Are they "ignorant" of economics too? Was Keynes "ignorant" of economics?"

Ummm......YES!

Mark in LA| 6.24.10 @ 2:08PM

The one comment worth reading. If economics were more than a psuedo-science, being "economically illiterate" might actually mean something and be detrimental to society. However, since it is a bogus propaganda ministry for the ruling classes (remember they had 500 well known economists in support of amnesty for illegal aliens with a open letter to the President) being economically illiterate should be a badge of honor or a sign of education or intelligence.

Tim| 6.25.10 @ 2:43AM

Mark
Hey, "they" are wrong. I consider myself a bit left of center, and I laugh at myself all the time. Like when I foolishly deluded myself into thinking that a Democratic President could actually accomplish something worthwhile instead of cleaning up the Republican messes (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan, the scat pile left by the "drill baby drill" people, the immigration meltdown that will replace the gulf oil spill as the story of the summer, and the recession/depression we're in -- and yes, that did too begin under GWB, and as a result of his policies. Pretty foolish of me to think the Donkeys could get to their own agenda while mopping all that up, huh?

Anyway, you're dead right about the propaganda ministry for the ruling classes. Just keep us thinking about (oh the drama) Prime Interest Rates and the Dow breaking 12,000 while the crooks in charge let the Real Estate market go off a cliff, bend over for the crooked bankers, strike up deal after deal with blood sucking insurance companies, and oh, by the way, completely F up the TWO wars we were supposed to be able to win with one hand behind our backs. Don't get me entirely wrong -- there will be the same kind of list for the Democrats at the end of their reign -- but (to beat a dead horse) it'll be because they had to spend all their time keeping the ship afloat after eight years of mismanagement. But I'm laughing, don't worry -I'm falling all over myself. Really.

Mark in LA| 6.25.10 @ 12:52PM

Tim, the first paragraph was not mine, I should have given the attribution of it to its author Rufus Levin. I assumed by posting it its entirety and it only being a few posts up, it would be obvious.

Anyway, my real point was the stupidity of supposedly intelligent conservatives constantly pointing to a psuedo-science as "proof" of something, even though economics has NEVER made any useful predictions or caused society to avoid any economic crisis. In fact, economist are forever, making excuses for the current imbalances that EVERYBODY on the street sees only to be crying that "NOBODY could have forseen" the end result when it all comes crashing down. In the last 30 years we had the S&L crisis, the dot com and housing bubble and each time economists insisted we had entered a "new era" or there was nothing seriously wrong with the economy.

What is even more funny about these conservatives is that they rightly ridicule the left leaning psuedo-science of sociology which uses the exact same techniques and makes the exact same simplifications as economics.

Louis Jenkins| 6.24.10 @ 2:13PM

Very simple Ray. You say you're not in a depression, and wha-la, you're not in a depression. Pretty kewl huh? Can't wait until Obummer says we're not in an oil spill, a health care crisis, changing generals (what-we are?).

Bull Nuggets | 6.24.10 @ 3:01PM

Great article-full of truth-
Liberalism is like cancer-it takes over a host, wears it down, devours it, destroys it, and moves on to the next.

Anthony| 6.24.10 @ 3:33PM

Liberalism IS a cancer, not cancer like. And like cancer, it must be eradicated for the sake of a healthy body politic.
I fear America is on the verge of life-support.

Nate| 6.24.10 @ 11:25PM

Spoken like a true fascist.

Tim| 6.25.10 @ 2:57AM

Hey Anthony! I'm a Liberal, so how 'bout you come over here and "eradicate" me? Come on, man! I must be a big pu$$y or I wouldn't be liberal, would I? Email me at timtheliberal@yahoo.com and I'll give you directions to my house. That should ease the eradication process for you. Better bring your apron though -- it could get messy. :-)

CommonSense| 6.26.10 @ 11:09PM

Hey Tim, I don't think he meant he was going to do anything physical. He was speaking more to eliminating the ideology. You sure went on the defensive quickly though. Perhaps you should consider using persuasion, and sharing your ideas and thoughts to win people over. I could go on about how big I am, how many guns I own, how tough I am, etc... but I respect you. You have a right to your opinions and ideas and I would die defending them. I may disagree with you, but I love freedom and wouldn't want anyone to take your's away. Think with your mind and not your ego.

Common sense.

Gail| 6.26.10 @ 11:15PM

Tim ~ you would probably give Anthony your Conservative neighbor's address if he asked for it . Your response is truly uncalled for as Anthony said liberalism must be erdicated, not liberals. Get a grip ~ you paranoia is showing.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 6.24.10 @ 3:22PM

I have yet to verify the validity of what I think I heard played at the end of today’s Rush-o-rama. It sounded like obummer decreeing that the U.S. dollar will no longer be the world’s reserve currency. Considering that this status is the primary reason foreign countries are willing to trade dollars, if true, he has dealt our economy a killing blow. I read recently an opinion that since most states are teetering on bankruptcy and their fiscal year ends June 30th, that July 1 is a likely date for an economic collapse. If beavisbud did do this the dollar will collapse on the world market. While this would make American markets more attractive to foreign buyers because their relative costs would decline - more bang for the yuan, remember that we no longer manufacture many of the products which made OUR Country the greatest on earth. Pretty much all that we have left to sell is our land. We will pay more for imported goods. This may be a developing story. We could be in for a very tumultuous time. Hope I’m wrong. Scared I’m right.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
“Stupid is as stupid does.” - A line from the movie Forrest Gump
Only 941 days to go.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 6.24.10 @ 4:07PM

This might be a link to a story based on the audio Rush played.
http://www.reuters.com/article.....2920090325
I found it via a google search using the terms “obama reserve currency”
Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
"Be afraid. Be very afraid" - originated in ‘The Fly (1986)’ as dialogue spoken by Geena Davis.
Only 941 days to go.

R Martin| 6.24.10 @ 3:59PM

I am willing to excuse leftists ignorance of economics (or anyone else’s for that matter), because reading the stuff is not the same as sitting down with a Vince Flynn novel. However, what I cannot excuse is ignorance of history or, particularly in the case of leftists, revisionist history. Even a casual look at U.S. economic history over the past 100 years reveals clearly periods of economic growth and decline--always precipitated by government action.

Modern economics pretty much started in 1913 with the creation of the Federal Reserve System and the enactment of a federal income tax. Both were products of the Progressive Era intended to restrain the expansive growth of the previous decades which, propelled by massive immigration, produced Morgan and Rockefeller fortunes and a perception of business excesses. One of the first things the new Fed did was address the huge flow of gold into the U.S. during the early years of WW I when the country was still neutral. We were on the gold standard, so the Fed wanted to maintain the price of gold which it did by monetizing the inflow. It increased the U.S. dollar float by a factor of two. (Don’t run for your Flynn, this gets easier). What happened? Inflation—up 83% in four years. That rate was abetted by American entry into WW I, but when the war ended soldiers came home to few jobs, high prices and a grim economic outlook. There were terrible strikes. What did the Fed do? Engineered deflation. It increased interest rates, inflation turned negative in 1920-1921 and unemployment rose to 12 percent. With falling prices, producers had no incentive to produce. Then Warren Harding was elected president, and he chose Andrew Mellon as his secretary of the treasury. A brilliant choice. Mellon convinced the Fed to lower interest rates and stabilize prices and Congress to lower tax rates. The top rate was reduced from 73 percent to 25 percent, the bottom rate was lowered to 1 percent and the minimum income subject to tax was raised by 50 percent. What happened? The Roaring Twenties. Supply side economics was thus born, and the seven years from 1922 to 1929 were arguably the brightest and most prosperous in American History. Consumer prices were virtually stable throughout the period.

After the war, Britain, France and Germany returned to the gold standard. However, based on earlier Fed action worldwide prices of goods and services were so much higher than before monetization that the fixed price of gold ($20.67) was artificially low. An upward revision of the price was widely expected, and this uncertainty set the stage for the Great Depression. Economists still debate the cause of that disaster, but most agree it was not the stock market crash of 1929. If you bought stock in January 1929 your portfolio was still in the black in April 1930. However, if you were a high volume margin trader you probably got whacked. Here’s what happened. Gold was undervalued, U.S. dollars and British pounds were convertible into gold, and therefore there was demand for those currencies. The American and British governments decided not to print more currency to meet the demand, and that produced deflation. Plus the Fed raised interest rates. Still, people were raiding their bank accounts for currency to convert to gold, yet the Fed would not produce more dollars by acting as lender of last resort to those banks. A crisis ensued and bank failures ballooned. Then there were fiscal shocks which transformed deflation into depression. The Smoot-Hawley tariff led to retaliation and both imports and exports fell. Then the coup de grace, the Revenue Act of 1932, enacted the largest percentage tax increase in peacetime history. Unemployment rose to 25 percent and GDP fell by 57 percent. International business collapsed and any profits which could be generated were siphoned off to the government via taxation. Around the world it became every nation for itself as all were forced to look internally for prosperity. It didn’t work. Unemployment never dropped below 14 percent during the 1930’s in the United States, and smaller countries like Germany and Japan knew they had to expand to find adequate resources, which is what led to WW II.

After the war the United States experienced the unusual conditions of negative economic growth (13 percent in three years) and inflation as wartime price controls were lifted. From 1945 to 1948 the consumer price index rose34 percent. Tax rates were very high with twenty four progressive brackets ensuring any income gain went disproportionately to the government. There was real risk of another depression. However, Republicans had control of Congress in 1948 and they passed a tax cut, overriding Truman’s veto. The economic decline was halted and inflation curtailed. Growth for the six years following 1947 was 4.6 percent per annum. The U.S. government was also committed to debt reduction. In 1945 federal debt stood at 110 percent of GDP, taken on largely to pay for the war and the New Deal. By 1955 that figure had been reduced to 55 percent.

Prosperity faltered during the Eisenhower years when there were three recessions. Economic growth was anemic despite a rather strong 1.7 percent per annum population growth. Republicans were unable to pass tax cuts (Eisenhower opposed them) and lost control of Congress in 1954. JFK campaigned on boosting economic activity and, after he was elected, he was advised by a number of economists who were all Keynesians. Their prescription was to boost demand through more government spending, i.e. via deficits. However, at about this time a young economist, Robert Mundell, was working at the IMF, and he advocated a policy of tight money and lower taxes. He argued that fiscal policy ought to aim at domestic growth and monetary policy at currency stability. Kennedy implemented these policies, and the effects were remarkable. Tax rates were reduced across the board and the Fed tripled the federal funds rate over four years. GDP growth was 5.1 percent per annum from 1961 to 1968, unemployment declined, inflation only rose from 1 percent to 1.6 percent and federal revenues grew by 50 percent between 1962 and 1968. This was all to be undone by Lyndon Johnson, his Great Society and the Viet Nam war. From 1965 to 1969 federal outlays increased 55 percent, and in 1967 Johnson asked Congress for a tax increase, including a 10 percent surtax, essentially a tax on taxes. He also convinced the Fed to keep interest rates low. The federal budget deficit mushroomed from a tiny $1.4 billion in 1965 to $25 billion in 1968, even against historically large increases in federal revenue. Inflation began to blossom, although unemployment was kept in check by a huge military draft—which would not last.

Of course all of this led to the debacle of the 1970’s with the misery index of high inflation and high unemployment, 21 percent interest rates and a 70 percent decline in stock market value. That dreadful period ended when Ronald Regan adopted the supply side recommendations of Robert Mundell, Art Laffer, Jude Wanniski and Jack Kemp. Twenty five years of prosperity followed.

This post is probably a bit over the top in length, but I felt it necessary to expose the hypocrisy of liberals who say they don’t understand economics. It’s pretty easy to follow empirically which government actions foster prosperity and which do the opposite. I fear we are saddled with a government intent on doing the latter. Our efforts to stop them will be enhanced with a bit of historical perspective.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 6.24.10 @ 4:13PM

Well done! Music to my ears. Thank you.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
"In general, if any branch of trade, or any division of labour, be advantageous to the public, the freer and more general the competition, it will always be the more so."
Adam Smith in The Wealth Of Nations, Book II, Chapter II, p.329, para. 106.
Only 941 days to go.

AMENBRO| 6.24.10 @ 4:08PM

One normative reality which has no shadow in fallacy is simple.

*In the circular flow of capital, rents, goods & services, resources and labor if you take a dollar out somewhere it must be replaced somehow proving quantifiable so

"THERE IS NO SUCH THAING AS A FREE LUNCH YAWL!"

Don| 6.24.10 @ 4:19PM

Actually Jesus gave a free lunch.
Gosh, Why does an economy of 300 million people producing 100, 000 wealthy people not impress me?

chemman| 6.24.10 @ 10:57PM

Keynesian economics had two parts.
1) during poor economic conditions the government primes the pump with deficit spending
2) during good economic conditions the government uses the excess income to pay off the pump priming deficit that occurred during the poor economic conditions.

Considering that these same economists you quote don't call for the second part of Keynes to be implemented then I would say they are ignorant of Keynes.

jrjr| 6.24.10 @ 5:03PM

Author Ross quote: "If Barack Obama ever took an economics course, he does a good job of hiding it." I hope you were merely doing a smack-down of the One. Obama knows the difference! How long is it going to take before you realize that he likes the version of government that comes with socialism, communism, etc. Do you not think he has read many books that favor and discuss capitalism, the Constitution, and our foundings -- and has tossed those things aside? Wake up, wake up, wake up. Perhaps the author voted for Obama and is just now becoming aware that we are doomed with him in the WH.

David Williams| 6.24.10 @ 5:06PM

Perhaps it's you, Don.

Will| 6.24.10 @ 7:08PM

On the subject of "abominable Obamacare" did you know that the Commonwealth Fund, an American think-tank on health policy, just published a comparative study of 7 countries- the USA, UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Germany & Holland. It found that the US system was the worst of all these, with Australia 1st & the UK 2nd. This is despite the fact that Americans pay over $7,000 per head for their healthcare, as opposed to $2,500-$3,500 in the other 6 countries. However, it concluded that the healthcare reforms should "start to address these problems".
Just google "Commonwealth Fund", the report is on their website. It's an enlightening read.

Will| 6.24.10 @ 7:09PM

Sorry, Holland came 1st, the UK 2nd

Watcher| 6.24.10 @ 10:19PM

You greatly underestimate Obama's understanding of World economics.
See?

A famous quote of Barack Obama;
"We can't drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times, whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect every other country is going to say OK, you know, you guys go ahead keep on using 25 percent of the world's energy, even though you only account for 3 percent of the population, and we'll be fine. Don't worry about us. That's not leadership."
http://spectator.org/archives/.....-from-obam

Leading the way to affluence is not leadership!
Obama views leadership as retarding our Nation's economy until 3rd World nations catch up.
He is doing a great job of redistributing the source of America's wealth by outsourcing our Industry.
(And the good factory jobs that provide stable income.)

Will| 6.25.10 @ 4:38AM

The outsourcing of American industry began decades ago, and continued apace under President Bush. By passing the "Buy American" statute and putting tariffs on Chinese tyres, Obama has actually done more for American industry than his predecessor.
And the quote is perfectly reasonable, because of Global Warming, which is very much real, and the USA is the greatest cause of it. How can it really be reasonable that 25% of global emissions are caused by 3% of the population?

WAKE UP| 6.24.10 @ 10:21PM

Anne said (way back at the top): "The real problem is that thry [liberals/progressives] KNOW they are wrong and absolutely will not admit to it."

Actually Anne, the problem is that they DON'T KNOW they're wrong and absolutely will not admit it. :)

Marc Jeric| 6.24.10 @ 10:26PM

There has been a progression in names those criminals give themselves:
1) Up until 1939 they called themselves with a lot of triumphant pride "communists";
2) After the Hitler-Stalin Pact they became "socialists"; this lasted till 1956 when
3) The knowledge of mass murders committed by Lenin and Stalin and llittle later by Mao the same criminals became "liberals"; and now
4) When the utter poverty accompanied by terror associated with socialism became widely know the same people call themselves the "progressives".
But all throughout the last 150 years it is the same deadly desire to rule that has caused the real evil in this world.

chemman| 6.24.10 @ 11:00PM

Don, my post under you doesn't belong there. It should have showed up under Ray @ 1:28 p.m.
My normal e-mail was rejected and when I put in my alternate e-mail it post under you.

Yosemeti Sam| 6.25.10 @ 2:44AM

" Ignorance Is Liberal Bliss ...."

Hmmmm - that Mao Zoo Dung White House
Christmas tree ornament; relevant to that posit ?; but I digress.

So - how deep do Leftoids really think, to reach a drill-down plateau of prideful ignorance?

And where is this - this deep Leftoid arrogant ignorant/ignorant arrogant snot-nosed nature rooted?

Yo - a posit:

It is - deep down in their collectively plateaued 'id's.

Wherein space is strictly limited.

Formatted with Commie-flavored institutionalized Leftoid memes from especially yesteryear.

Ever pooling from yet unfilled actualization of grand consummate visions of world-wide thug-enforced-gulag/firing squad-if-need-be egalitarianism. (Yo - but stymied wherever 2nd amendment rights are practiced!)

Basically a thesis-driven id-guided (group think) paternalistic requirement for overseers/slave-masters - for the good of ignorant bourgeoisie and proletariat alike.

These self-defined self-nobilized deemed strata betters who BTW use gold leafed toilet paper - naturally should hold all reins through judgeships, panels, star chambers, tanks etc etc etc.

There it is - the Leftoid idolized 'id'/ideological embrace - capillary nurtured Socialism; kinsman to Communism - elaborated extensively about in some dusty Black Book; of empirical Nirvana Nightmare - imposed upon freedom loving human beings. Contemporary: Cuba - anyone?; No ?; then Nkorea?; No ?; then perhaps ....?

The Leftoids' EVIL emulative aim - greater and more polished finesse than the bumpkins Marx, Lenin and blackheart Stalin and his ideological sired piglets!

If only - if only several centuries of prototypical AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL precepts would stand aside.

Right now: BHO and the Democrat party: them in-your-face-delineated Leftoids: are indeed jumping the political shark!

LOL.

Over the Great White American Peoples' Shark - whose maw is wider than a mile.

Werner Patels | 6.25.10 @ 5:03AM

Lefties are always clueless. All they know is lying, violence and being stupid and incompetent, not to mention bitter about their own lives, which is why they try to wreck things for the rest of us.

uhuh| 6.25.10 @ 5:15AM

From following the link in the published pdf, it looks to me that the questions in their survey were designed to measure/detect the difference in opinion between conservatives and liberals. It didn't read to me as though it was measuring "economic enlightenment".
eg. "level of agreement - poverty causes crime"
Therefore, I suspect that one of the premises of the study (that they're objectively measuring the level of economic knowledge) is incorrect. If that's the case, simplistically saying that conservatives know more about economics is not supported either.

John Navratil| 6.25.10 @ 8:00AM

uhuh,

I believe you will see in the paper that they specifically did NOT measure the respondents level of economic knowledge. The eight questions they correlated to political inclination were all related to diseconomies introduced by regulation or, in the case of foreign labor, an implicit call for wage control.

There is no claim that conservatives know more about economics. Just that they respond to the questions in opposition to the imposed dis-economy. No surprise there. The presumption in the paper was that it was foolish to impose dis-economies. I have to agree.

uhuh| 6.25.10 @ 10:26AM

John,

I agree with you that they did not measure the respondents' level of economic knowledge, and specifically make the following statement:
We acknowledge a shortcoming about the set of economic questions used here, and a corresponding reservation. None of the questions
challenge the economic foibles specifically of “conservatives,” nor of “libertarians,” as compared to those of “liberals”/“progressives.”

In other words, the questions highlight only the perceived limitations/shortcomings of a liberal mindset, and do not do the same for a conservative/libertarian mindset.
Given this, I think it is an inaccurate interpretation to generalize and say that liberals have no economic knowledge (eg. the Spectator's article!) when the questions are specifically designed to play to the respective strengths and weaknesses of the two philosophies.

For what it's worth, I agree with the so-called "enlightened" position for all eight questions. But I find it irritating and intellectually dishonest that simple yes/no questions about complex economic considerations have resulted in broad-brush generalizations across what are very diverse opinions.

John Navratil| 6.25.10 @ 2:45PM

uhuh,

The distillation of the argument wasn't much more than conservatives are also economically conservative and therefore smarter, at least economically. It isn't the most important piece of academic research, I'll grant.

The conclusion, as I read, is that it takes are certain economic illiteracy to hold the "unenlightened" positions. It doesn't make the holder dumb, or smart, but it does appear to correlate strongly to them being liberal. I add, that pursuing these policies despite a century of failure is always excused by saying that the "right" people or set of laws wasn't in place. This time we'll get it right.

That's not reason, that is faith. It's also not smart.

Lex | 6.25.10 @ 10:38AM

Ignorance is not the exclusive province of one particular ideological mindset. Remember, it was Fox viewers who were most likely to believe that Saddam was behind 9/11 and that we'd found WMDs in Iraq.

That said, much as tools like you want to deny it, the events of the past decade have made John Maynard Keynes look pretty damn prescient. And if you honestly think the prospect of 2% inflation is a more clear and present danger than the actuality of 10% unemployment, take it up with your beloved bond markets, where long-term T-bills are still finding buyers at just 3.4% -- near-historic lows.

John Navratil| 6.25.10 @ 2:53PM

Lex,

Keynes, prescient? I think not. Despite the fact that the Chicago school doesn't have a particular problem with deficits so long as they are matched by corresponding surpluses as a fiscal policy, Keynesian stimulus is not such a policy.

Keynes said: "If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing."

He must have thought better of it as he repudiated much of it before he died, and then died before seeing the wreckage the policies which bear his name has brought.

Lex | 7.1.10 @ 12:03PM

In point of fact, John, Keynes' most salient point -- if the private sector isn't creating jobs, the government must -- remains solid.

And if you are going to try to get me to believe that conscious embrace of Keynesianism played any significant role in our current crisis (in comparison to fraud and regulatory capture), you're going to have to buy me a lot of beer first.

Bono Hussien Obama | 6.25.10 @ 10:47AM

Most Obama voters my age got everything from "Schoolhouse Schlock" or some hippy granola crapola on PBS, and really thought that, to quote George Carlin, more bike lines would make everyone shiny and happy. We need more Alex P. Keatons and less clueless, trend-sucking "Friends", none of whom could afford that apartment and we all know it.

yob| 6.25.10 @ 11:22AM

...and McCain voters were all gun-toting creationists who think Obama was an anti-Christ commie, and that what the US needs are more jails. Stupid stereotypes cut both ways, you see....

Phoebe | 6.25.10 @ 12:53PM

Whatever, uh, yob. Enjoy "Big Chill, The Musical!"

yob| 6.25.10 @ 1:21PM

My post was an example of a stupid stereotype, much like Bono Hussien Obama's -- sorry if that wasn't clear

flakes| 10.20.10 @ 1:49PM

I mean really... the first question is

Restrictions on housing development makes housing less affordable:

1. Strongly Agree
2. Somewhat Agree
3. Somewhat Disagree
5. Strongly Disagree
5. Not Sure.

So let's say that as a conservative you believe that the correct answer is "Strongly Agree" so in your opinion this would be correct. And in some situations you would be right. That is simple supply and demand.

But look at something like gentrification. You take a neighborhood that has a mix of artsy types and families. These neighborhoods tend to be really popular with development people. And you start pushing out the families and build luxury condominiums. You will actually push prices up. So number 5 in some urban settings is actually correct in this instance.

There are other situations where even though prices would be pushed down you don't want to do it anyway. Let's say Donald Trump decided that he wanted to turn Central Park in New York into Condos. Yes housing prices would go down, but at what cost?

In my opinion the only thing this article demonstrated was the poor educational standards this country has fallen to, and the level of disinformation in our current political system.

flakes| 10.20.10 @ 1:57PM

Sorry, I was typing quickly, and meant "Strongly Disagree" in the paragraph below

Latest Headlines

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|1 comment

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|2 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|3 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|1 comment

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|3 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman

The Devils Koch

Marta H. Mossburg

The Spectacle Blog

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 12:41AM

Good Luck Quin

Aaron Goldstein | 12:13AM

One of The London Soldier Beheading Suspects British Born

Aaron Goldstein | 5.23.13

Lois Lerner Now on Administrative Leave

Kaylin Bugos | 5.23.13

Crisis Looms, and Kevin Williamson Can Hardly Wait

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.23.13

Dismantling Networks, Preventing Footholds

Ross Kaminsky | 5.23.13

Bill Would Ban All Abortions After 20 Weeks

Jordan Gonzalez | 5.23.13

Harry Reid Pushes for the Nuclear Option

Claire Healey | 5.23.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?