As promised, here are the results of my survey of economists. You can see three views into the results today, and I plan to blog more about it this week.
(Format problems are because my blogging software is finnicky.)
1. My opinion on the results, on CNN.com http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/16/dilbert.economy/index.html
2. Detailed survey data: http://dilbert.com/dyn/ppt/Draft-report--9-3-08.ppt
3. Press release (below)
[Some contact information removed here]
Dilbert Survey of Economists Democratic Economists Favor Obama. Republican Economists Favor McCain. Independents Lean Toward Obama.
Dublin, CA (September 10, 2008) – Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert comic strip, commissioned a survey of over 500 economists to find out which candidate for President of the United States would be best for the economy long term.
Says Adams, “I found myself wishing someone would give voters useful and unbiased information about which candidate has the best plans for the economy. Then I realized that I am someone, which is both inconvenient and expensive.”
At considerable personal expense, Adams commissioned a survey of over 500 economists, drawn from a subset of the members of the American Economic Association, a non-political group, some of whose members had agreed in advance to be surveyed on economic questions. The results do not represent the AEA’s position. The survey was managed by The OSR Group, a respected national public opinion and marketing research company.
Nationally, most economists are male and registered as either Democrats or Independents. The survey sample reflects that imbalance.
48% Democrats
17% Republicans
27% Independents
3% Libertarian
5% Other or not registered86% of the economists surveyed are male, and 65% work in the field of academia or education. The rest are spread across various industries or not working.
When asked which candidate for President would be best for the economy in the long run, not surprisingly, 88% of Democratic economists think Obama would be best, while 80% of Republican economists pick McCain. Independent economists, who in this sample are largely from the academic world, lean toward Obama by 46% compared to 39% for McCain. Overall, 59% of the economists say Obama would be best for the economy long term, with 31% picking McCain, and 8% saying there would be no difference.
The economists were asked to rank the most important economic issues and pick which candidate they thought would do the best job on those issues.
Rank Issues Obama McCain No Diff.
1 Education 59% 14% 27%
2 Health care 65% 20% 15%
3 International trade 26% 51% 23%
4 Energy 61% 22% 17%
5 Encouraging
Technology/innovation 43% 23% 34%
6 Wars and
homeland security 58% 30% 11%
7 Mortgage/housing crisis 41% 18% 41%
8 Social Security 40% 24% 35%
9 Environmental policy 72% 9% 19%
10 Reducing the deficit 37% 29% 33%
11 Immigration 33% 29% 38%
12 Increasing taxes 79% 14% 7%
on wealthy
13 Reducing waste 16% 38% 46%
in government
The economists in the survey favor Obama on 11 of the top 13 issues. But keep in mind that 48% are Democrats and only 17% are Republicans. Among Independents, things are less clear, with 54% thinking that in the long run there would either be no difference between the candidates or McCain would do better.
Adams puts the survey results in perspective: “If an economist uses a complicated model to predict just about anything, you can ignore it. By analogy, a doctor can’t tell you the exact date of your death in 50 years. But if a doctor tells you to eat less and exercise more, that’s good advice even if you later get hit by a bus. Along those same lines, economists can give useful general advice on the economy, even if you know there will be surprises. Still, be skeptical.”
[Some contact information removed]
Interview requests for Scott Adams can be directed to scottadams@aol.com. Adams will only be responding by e-mail for the next few months due to some minor surgery to fix a voice issue.
Update: Some of you will wonder how reliable a bunch of academics are when it comes to answering real life questions about the economy. You might prefer to know what CEOs think. But remember that CEOs are paid to be advocates for their stockholders, not advocates for voters. Asking CEOs what should be done about the economy is like asking criminals for legal advice. More on that this week.
And for my view on the value economists: http://dilbert.com/blog/?Date=2008-08-22
Any help in distributing this information across the Internet would be appreciated.
Votes: +15
Comments
It is a revolution of the second type, one that advocates a slow but relentless transfer of power from the individual to the state, that has roots in the Department of Economics at Yale, and unquestionably in similar departments in many colleges throughout the country."
William F. Buckley, Jr. "God and Man at Yale" 1949
=========================
Bobwilliams
<a href="http://www.drivenwide.com">Viral marketing</a>
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
In particular, the conclusion by Dilbert that:
''[…] you should expect [economists] to cross party lines when the data is clear and understood, and to lean toward party loyalties when things get fuzzy. That's how humans are wired. We like our team.''
is really a good news to me…
Actually these Dilbert's survey result is really similar to the one I and a co-author got conducting a survey on Italian economists' opinions. Interesting, isn't it?
If you are interested in our survey's results have a look at
http://micdimaio.googlepages.com/surveyofitalianeconomists
Ciao,
michele
Your survey does not resolve any arguments, but it does provide additional, useful ammunition for those arguments. That's the most it ever could have done.
As to those who claim Obama voted against health care for fetuses that survive abortion, have you looked at what else was in the Illinois bill (not the comparable federal bill -- I'm talking about the actual bill he actually voted on)?
When a politician votes against an entire bill with numerous facets, it is logically indefensible to then isolate one element from that bill and conclude that he must oppose that element. It is shockingly unfair and misleading to then spread that claim around as an established fact, without acknowledging the other facets and implications of that bill.
If you just want to smear the opposing candidate, then go ahead and mislead people. If you want a genuine discussion, then at least state the facts correctly (e.g., "Obama opposed a Right to Life bill that included . . .").
Sure, and that's a completely fair point.
What I was trying to express was a bit different. If you surveyed farmers, instead of economists, and asked them for the three biggest factors for farming were... one of those answers would be, "the weather" and republicans, democrats and independents would agree on that one.
If you have a bad enough drought, it doesn't matter if fuel is free, your crop still sucks that year.
But it looked like there wasn't even agreement on what the top three issues are... and even those went along party lines. That is what was troubling. You would think that on a number of economic issues, economists would agree, in spite of what political affiliation they favored... but that didn't seem to be the case.
Think of it this way. If 90% of economists favored McCain's approach to taxes, holy cats that would be huge.
Au contraire. In my post, I argued that between unaccountable social activists posing as academics vs. drivers of the economy who are responsible for creating wealth (or directing its creation, if that makes you happy), that CEOs are infinitely more qualified to judge the economic policies of presidential candidates.
And then you agreed with me.
You agreed that CEOs "organize...capital that is necessary for the workers to continue to create wealth." Put another way, it is business people who are knowledgeable of economics and how governmental economic policy will affect their business, their industry, and business in general in the national economy.
It was my argument to lose, and despite your hot air, Equality 7-2521, my argument is unchallenged.
> One small correction. Businesses don't create wealth. Workers create wealth.
> Businesses are a means to organize workers so that they can work together
> to create wealth more efficiently.
Amusing, but that's not the way it works. Business people have a different attitude and drive than most other people. If a business person can't get help, he does it himself. On the other hand, if a more typical person can't get a job, he simply doesn't work. The thought of creating wealth outside the role of an employee is a foreign thought.
> CEOs then take a cut of the wealth for providing a place to work. They also
> organize (but don't usually directly supply - that's the banks job) capital that
> is necessary for the workers to continue to create wealth (i.e. raw materials).
That's what it looks like from a Marxist view, yes. But it's not reality.
> Think of it this way: Can a business with zero workers create wealth?
Businesses are people, not pieces of paper, so if the question is can a business _person_ with zero employees create wealth, then again, the answer is yes. A business _person_ will create wealth with or without the help of others. Hundreds of thousands do it every single day. But there are millions that don't--and won't.
CEOs then take a cut of the wealth for providing a place to work. They also organize (but don't usually directly supply - that's the banks job) capital that is necessary for the workers to continue to create wealth (i.e. raw materials).
Think of it this way: Can a business with zero workers create wealth?
So the Democratic economists are not in any answer saying McCain is better.
> for legal advice.
Actually, you'd be surprised. Some criminals give awesome legal advice. It's crucial for them to know every little hole in the law.
Another two things I noticed in these comments:
1. nobody reads others' comments
2. no one here seems to think that religious motivation and war could be relevant to economy
> for voters. Asking CEOs what should be done about the economy is like asking criminals
> for legal advice.
That's RIDICULOUS! What do you think makes a strong economy? Government? Government produces nothing--it only consumes. Academics? Please. Academics are little more than political activists on the government dole.
Look, the country is just like person. if you want more wealth, you work more and produce more. And who is that produces wealth in a national economy? BUSINESSES of all sizes. Businesses create wealth and jobs, and that contributes to a strong national economy (not to mention that their products and services benefit their customers).
So why not ask CEOs? They don't just participate in the economy, they drive it. Unlike academic pinheads, CEOs are accountable to others for producing, creating, and building wealth. And although you imply that shareholders of any given company are somehow separate from the economy, they are, in fact, a part of it.
The ultimate question regarding economics is, how do you make it easier for producers to produce, and nobody knows better than the producers themselves: business people.
P.S. I'm continually troubled by the portrayal of the "profit motive" as some sort of sin or vice. It is no vice, and there is nothing sinful about working hard to create a better life for one's self, one's family, and the benefactors of one's voluntary charity.
There is no one in this country who can make a non partisan decision - when watching any talking head , as soon as you find out what party affiliation someone is , you know exactly what they will say
nothing to see here ....
gets a lower percent of supporters than the percent of registered
Democrats in the sample. Can you imagine a registered Democrat saying
that McCain is better at encouraging technology innovation than Obama?
Or preserving social security? Or reducing the defecit? That has
happened. I would have thought that given the sample they would have
been more partisan. Look at International Trade, Mortgage/Housing
Crisis, Immigration, and Reducing Waste in Government. Not good for
Obama. I can picture the outcome of the same survey in a sample that
was 3 to 1 registered Republican.
My interpretation: registered Democrats will support McCain on many
key economic issues, or at least agree that there is no difference
between the candidates. The exceptions are Education, where he gives
up a lot of ground to Obama, and "Increasing Taxes on the Wealthy".
It is hard to say whether the latter really fits anyway - it is the
only question that substitutes a partisan policy for a broad topic.
It would have been better worded as general Tax Policy.
I'm guessing that when Scott suggests McCain is "lukewarm", he's not referring so much to his political bi-partisanship, than the fact that he is only just about alive...
cheers,
Iain
Just because McCain has engaged in bi-partisan efforts and doesn't throw flames around when he speaks doesn't mean he is "lukewarm". He is loyal and even feisty where it counts.
