Economics - How little do you know? A test.
It's quite evident that the forefront question in the elections of the past couple of years, and most likely in the next few years, is heavily centered on economics. Since economics isn't quite as easy as many believe, and there are a number of arguments made which run from being somewhat inaccurate to flat out wrong, some researchers made a survey to test the average voter's knowledge. The study came to some quite interesting conclusions, especially in relation to how people answered systematically erroneous due to their political bias. Since T|A appears to be quite a liberal site, I expect a strong liberal bias (assuming people don't cheat, of course).
Below you will find the range of answers and a number of statements. Pick an answer (preferably among 1 thru 4) for each statement, and you can check your grasp of the field.
1. Strongly agree
2. Somewhat agree
3. Somewhat disagree
4. Strongly disagree
5. Not sure
6. Other
7. (Refuse to answer)
Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable.
Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services.
Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago.
Rent control leads to housing shortages.
A company with the largest market share is a monopoly.
Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited.
Free trade leads to unemployment.
Minimum-wage laws raise unemployment.
A dollar means more to a poor person than it does to a rich person.
Making abortion illegal would increase the number of black-market abortions.
Legalizing drugs would give more wealth and power to street gangs and organized crime.
Drug prohibition fails to reduce people’s access to drugs.
Gun-control laws fail to reduce people’s access to guns.
By participating in the marketplace in the United States, immigrants reduce the economic well-being of American citizens.
When a country goes to war, its citizens experience an improvement in economic well-being.
When two people complete a voluntary transaction, they both necessarily come away better off.
When two people complete a voluntary transaction, it is necessarily the case that everyone else is unaffected by their transaction.
-
Comment by Albert Bakker on November 14, 2011 at 2:48pm -
3,4,2,3,3,3,1,4,1,1,4,1,3,4,4,4,4
-
Comment by Arcus on November 14, 2011 at 3:25pm
-
Comment by Kevin Strong on November 14, 2011 at 4:12pm -
2,1,1,2,4,3,4,2,2,2,2,3,3,4,2,2,3 *Edited. Critical reading is important, misread two questions.
On the voluntary transaction: If they didn't think they were benefiting then they wouldn't voluntarily do it, so you have to quantify "better". Different people view different things as more important, or their immediate situation may make what they are trading for more valuable than it otherwise would be.
On War: It depends on the war, they come in all shapes and sizes. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that shows that increased employment from greater demand in the military and industrial sectors during war time do, in fact, increase prosperity in the short term. The long term argument is that government spending during war time inevitably leads to a balancing action, increased taxes etc..
-
Comment by Arcus on November 14, 2011 at 4:17pm
-
@Kevin: 11 'Not incorrect' answers, 6 'Incorrect' answers. D
Very conservative/Libertarian.
A war will always demand government resources which could be spent on goods with higher socioeconomic value. The military "produces" war, which does not increase overall economic well being. The only way to make war "profitable" would be if the soldiers looted more than the cost of war or the soldiers somehow created damage, i.e. by otherwise being criminals.
-
Comment by Arcus on November 14, 2011 at 4:28pm
-
@Kevin, Edited score 13 'Not incorrect' answers, 4 'Incorrect' answers.
The voluntary transaction argument is actually a bit trickier than it seems. Even though a transaction is voluntary (no duress/threat) does not immediately imply you are "happy" about it. If you have 10 apples and I have 2 oranges and they are of equal value, but due to market inefficiency you have noone else to trade with, I can demand 5 apples for 1 orange and you are left with no other choice than to take the deal. Call it "banking". ;)
-
Comment by Kevin Strong on November 14, 2011 at 5:13pm
-
I could choose not to take the deal, I must believe that I would be better off with your oranges.
Like I said with the war, it's a short run vs. long run argument, and the specific wording of their question is citizens. I'm not arguing that my answer was correct, I'm simply arguing that their question is not specific enough.
I'm actually not incredibly conservative. I recognize the validity of hard economic facts about regulations without endorsing the notion that we should go without them.
Also I count 3 incorrect answers 11, 15, and 16, after looking at the study.
-
Comment by Michael Klein on November 18, 2011 at 5:51am -
1
1
2
I don't even
3
Yes and no
Depends on place and time
Don't even start with THAT bullshit
1
1
4
3
3
Depends on circumstances
Depends on circumstances
If it's bullshit and you know it clap your hands
If it's bullshit and you know it clap your hands
Comment
What's new today
Forum
insane comment following tornadoes in Oklahoma
Started by Ron Humphrey in Welcome to Think Atheist. Last reply by archaeopteryx 2 minutes ago. 31 Replies 1 Like
Blog Posts
So the Pope said I can go to heaven...
Posted by Misty: Baytheist Living! on May 22, 2013 at 6:56pm 5 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!
Join Think Atheist