Economists are more likely to be Democrats and/or liberals

[BeAChooser]

How Did Economists Get It So Wrong? ... snip ... What happened to the economics profession?

Maybe this is a clue?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1lQqV1HDxXY/SOeh8KYK12I/AAAAAAAAACM/QALxAB7isnY/s1600-h/CUS955.gif (from http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12342127 )

And that might have something to do with economists being 3 times more likely to be a democrat than a republican.

And that might have something to do with the college professors that educate economists being so biased in favor of democrats.

:D

[mhaze]

Maybe this is a clue?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1lQqV1HDxXY/SOeh8KYK12I/AAAAAAAAACM/QALxAB7isnY/s1600-h/CUS955.gif (from http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12342127 )

And that might have something to do with economists being 3 times more likely to be a democrat than a republican.

And that might have something to do with the college professors that educate economists being so biased in favor of democrats.

:DFrom the article-

We e-mailed a questionnaire to 683 research associates, all we could track down, of the National Bureau of Economic Research, America’s premier association of applied academic economists

[drkitten]

Maybe this is a clue?


And that might have something to do with economists being 3 times more likely to be a democrat than a republican.

It might be, but it isn't. Krugman analyzes the problems in depth and they're largely due to the domination of monetarist (e.g., neo-Friedman) economists over the past forty years.

So, nice theory that unfortunately fails to survive contact with detailed analysis. As so many Republican-created theories are.

[BeAChooser]

It might be, but it isn't. Krugman analyzes the problems in depth and they're largely due to the domination of monetarist (e.g., neo-Friedman) economists over the past forty years.

Krugman, being a liberal economist and Obama supporter, would naturally conclude that. The blame never falls on liberal economics. :D

[mhaze]

It might be, but it isn't. Krugman analyzes the problems in depth.....Such depth!

Krugman Depth!

Krugman Deepness of Thought!

Such analysis!

Krugman Analysis!

Krugman Deep Analysis!

BWAHAHA!

[oldhat]

Krugman, being a liberal economist and Obama supporter, would naturally conclude that. The blame never falls on liberal economics. :D

You didn't read the article.

[lomiller]

Yes economists, like most people who deal in facts and knowledge for a living are increasingly swaying towards the Democrats. No doubt it’s all because of that damn reality conspiring against republican ideology!

[themusicteacher]

Such depth!

Krugman Depth!

Krugman Deepness of Thought!

Such analysis!

Krugman Analysis!

Krugman Deep Analysis!

BWAHAHA!

Now THAT is an ad hominem.

[oldhat]

Such depth!

Krugman Depth!

Krugman Deepness of Thought!

Such analysis!

Krugman Analysis!

Krugman Deep Analysis!

BWAHAHA!

Is this a reference to Monty Python or something? I don't get it.

[themusicteacher]

Krugman, being a liberal economist and Obama supporter, would naturally conclude that. The blame never falls on liberal economics. :D

Another prime example of ad hominem. Wow, they're everywhere!

[themusicteacher]

Maybe this is a clue?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1lQqV1HDxXY/SOeh8KYK12I/AAAAAAAAACM/QALxAB7isnY/s1600-h/CUS955.gif (from http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12342127 )

And that might have something to do with economists being 3 times more likely to be a democrat than a republican.

And that might have something to do with the college professors that educate economists being so biased in favor of democrats.

:D

Ah, yes; there it is. The whole, "Democrats are bad. Most college professors (who are economics prof's) lean Democrat. Most college professors (including those who teach economics) are bad." Pretty self-satisfying, huh? The cleverness of the right never ceases to amaze me. I mean, the non sequitur's are just thrown out there like they're going out of style. Pretty rich stuff from the "Meritocracy" crowd putting out arguments and memes that have no merit.

[BeAChooser]

Pretty rich stuff from the "Meritocracy" crowd putting out arguments and memes that have no merit.

Am I wrong in saying economists are FAR more likely to be liberal than conservative?

Am I wrong in saying those who teach economists are FAR more likely to be liberal than conservative?

If not, why am I necessarily wrong in suggesting that might have something to do with why economists get so much wrong lately?

For example, Obama and Biden's top economists (Chrisina Romer and Jared Bernstein) told us back in February that even without stimulus spending, unemployment would peak at 9% and with the stimulus spending it would peak at just under 8%. Clearly wrong on both accounts. Right?

I don't think I have to prove those two are liberals, do I?

:D

[oldhat]

Shorter BeAChooser: Liberals don't have time traveling DeLoreans with flux capacitors two of them made guesstimates about an inherently unstable future that turned out to be off by a standard deviation, therefore I'm going to tell the internet I think liberals are big dumb stupidheads.

[Corsair 115]

I find the implication in post #2 interesting in that it suggests that one's political persuasion interferes with a person whose profession it is to analyze numbers. So two plus two no longer equals four. No, now it's two plus two equals five because the adder is Democrat, or two plus two equals three if the adder is a Republican.

It's nice to see the instant denigration of someone's professionalism based on their political preferences...

[BeAChooser]

It's nice to see the instant denigration of someone's professionalism based on their political preferences...

It wasn't instant. It's taken decades to be sure. :D

Tell me, do you honestly think there is something about economics that makes economists MUCH more likely to be liberal then conservative? :rolleyes:

[themusicteacher]

Am I wrong in saying economists are FAR more likely to be liberal than conservative?

Am I wrong in saying those who teach economists are FAR more likely to be liberal than conservative?

If not, why am I necessarily wrong in suggesting that might have something to do with why economists get so much wrong lately?

For example, Obama and Biden's top economists (Chrisina Romer and Jared Bernstein) told us back in February that even without stimulus spending, unemployment would peak at 9% and with the stimulus spending it would peak at just under 8%. Clearly wrong on both accounts. Right?

I don't think I have to prove those two are liberals, do I?

:D

What evidence do you have that proves your first assertion or your second, for that matter? The data from that poll is not a representative sample size. Barely 20% of the people sent the poll responded. That is not a good survey result. Second, the poll doesn't indicate whether or not they teach economics. Third, fewer than half of the respondents identified as "Democrat." So, you set up the first part of your non sequitur at that point.

Next, you followed your specious conclusions based on bad data to a further specious conclusion: that because, in your version of truth, most economics prof's are "liberal" or "Democrats" (really synonyms in your mind, right?) that they have been teaching people "the wrong things." So, you accuse the imaginary econorati of poisoning the minds of these innocent people or, at least, of giving them a bad or incomplete education. Which, btw, you also cannot prove; it's an assumption based on what you want you want to be true.

Regardless of whether or not your conclusion is correct (highly doubtful), you made the conclusion based on a series of incorrect assumptions and faulty logic. I get the picture though: for you, it's all about ideology and in BAC world, liberal econ = unsound, bad for business and just all-around not good. That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion; just remember that you set yourself up for all sorts of logical fallacies when you use ideology as your jumping-off point.

[themusicteacher]

It wasn't instant. It's taken decades to be sure. :D

Tell me, do you honestly think there is something about economics that makes economists MUCH more likely to be liberal then conservative? :rolleyes:

What evidence do you have of that; and, no, the little survey in your econ mag is not data you want to hang your hat on.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Am I wrong in saying economists are FAR more likely to be liberal than conservative?
Am I wrong in saying those who teach economists are FAR more likely to be liberal than conservative?

What evidence do you have that proves your first assertion or your second, for that matter? The data from that poll is not a representative sample size. Barely 20% of the people sent the poll responded. That is not a good survey result.


So you don't think The Economist could do a good job of polling economists? :rolleyes:

And you seem to think this is the only source of information on this subject. You couldn't be more wrong.


http://ideas.repec.org/a/ejw/volone/2006148-179.html


AEA Ideology: Campaign Contributions of American Economic Association Members, Committee Members, Officers, Editors, Referees, Authors, and Acknowledgees

... snip ...

This paper investigates the 2004-election-cycle campaign contributions of the leadership of the American Economic Association. By cross-checking a name with an occupation, employer, and address, I develop a contribution profile for a sample of 2,000 AEA members, then use this profile as a benchmark to examine contributions of editors, referees, authors, and acknowledgees of the 2003 and 2004 issues of the American Economic Review, Journal of Economic Literature, and Journal of Economic Perspectives. Association members were 5 times more likely to give to Democrats than to Republicans.


:)

http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/dilbert_survey_of_economists/


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.

... snip ...

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. ... snip ... 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 registered

86% 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.


So again we find that by almost a 3 to 1 ratio, economists identify themselves as democrats compared to republicans. And 65% of economists work in academia or education.

Second, the poll doesn't indicate whether or not they teach economics.

So you are claiming there are "academic economists" who don't don't teach economics? :rolleyes:


Third, fewer than half of the respondents identified as "Democrat."


But fewer than 10 percent identified themselves as republicans.

As for universities ...

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/06/87-of-faculty-at-elite-colleges-are.html


87% of Faculty at Elite Colleges Are Liberal, and UC Faculty Are Worried About Milton Friedman?

Chicago Tribune -- In a letter to University of Chicago President Robert Zimmer, 101 professors—about 8% of the university's full-time faculty—said they feared that having a center named after the conservative, free-market economist Milton Friedman could "reinforce among the public a perception that the university's faculty lacks intellectual and ideological diversity."


http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2002/october_2002_5.html


New Study Reveals Extreme Partisan Bias Among Faculty

... snip ...

Volunteers for the American Enterprise Institute and the Center for the Study of Popular Culture investigated Board of Elections' records in the locales of nineteen of the nation's most prestigious colleges to examine the political party registrations of the professors at the schools. Professors were classified as "liberal" if they were registered with the Democratic Party, Green Party, or Working Family Party. Professors in the Republican Party or Libertarian Party were classified as "conservative."

... snip ...

Liberals outnumber conservatives 18 to one at Brown University. At Cornell University, the number is even higher, with liberals outnumbering conservatives more than 26 times. Penn State displayed a bit more balance, with the ratio of liberals to conservatives being six to one. Even the smallest disparity, at the University of Houston, had a ratio of three liberals to one conservative.

Of the 166 professors examined at Cornell University, only six were conservatives, with no conservatives at all in the fields of history and sociology. There were likewise no conservatives in these fields at Brown University.

Some of the largest disparities were found in the University of California system. UCLA, for instance, has only nine conservatives for 141 liberals. UC-Santa Barbara had only one conservative professor in the 73 examined. At the four UC schools surveyed, there were only five conservative political science professors compared to 90 liberals.

At UC-Berkeley, only seven of the 66 professors noted were conservatives, with none in the department of sociology. "It's not surprising to a lot of the more conservative students on campus because you often find classes where it seems very apparent," the editor-in-chief of Berkeley's student newspaper The California Patriot, James Gallagher, told Campus Report. "The problem is, a professor has the right to be in any party, ideology they want to be. But when they let ideology come over into their teaching that's when we have a problem.... Because there is such a bias, because there are so many professors who do identify with more of the Left that you have a lot of professors out there who let their ideology interfere with how they teach a class. That's not really learning, that's not really seeking any truth."


:D

[oldhat]

Conservatives aparently have a hard time understanding rhetorical devices and polemic.

It was hilarious when Megan McArdle and Jonah Goldberg seized upon this like it was some amazing AHA! GOTCHA KRUGMAN! moment.

I think part of the reason why conservatives suck at economics is they don't read articles like the one I originally posted and instead cling to wholly discredited Dick Armey/Ron Paul/Lew Rockwell/Mises Institute fringe type stuff that never challenges their ideology.

Liberals are more pragmatic. Maybe that's why the economy does better under Democratic leadership.

Honestly, read the article in the OP, it's a great overview of how we got here from there.

[Hindmost]

So you don't think The Economist could do a good job of polling economists? :rolleyes:

And you seem to think this is the only source of information on this subject. You couldn't be more wrong.


http://ideas.repec.org/a/ejw/volone/2006148-179.html



:)

http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/dilbert_survey_of_economists/



So again we find that by almost a 3 to 1 ratio, economists identify themselves as democrats compared to republicans. And 65% of economists work in academia or education.



So you are claiming there are "academic economists" who don't don't teach economics? :rolleyes:



But fewer than 10 percent identified themselves as republicans.

As for universities ...

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/06/87-of-faculty-at-elite-colleges-are.html



http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2002/october_2002_5.html



:D

Well, this either shows the Republican disdain for education...or a bunch of cherry picked data. (Berkeley, Cornell, Brown) Try again with the military academies...see what happens.

Samples sizes were just ridiculous for the Adams stuff...etc.

Of course places like the American Enterprise Institute understand that most people can't see past their ideology and won't be able to vet the info.

glenn

[Aepervius]

It wasn't instant. It's taken decades to be sure. :D

Tell me, do you honestly think there is something about economics that makes economists MUCH more likely to be liberal then conservative? :rolleyes:


Actually There are studies which shows that academic are more likely to be democrat than republicain. Not to make a gratuitious attack on republicain, but it does not surprise me, as it LOOKS that most of the republicain I know of at works (in germany. we have US coworker) or msot republicain I hear in the media, EVEN republicain media, are more or less either disparaging science, ignoring it, fighting it actively, or are even in a mindset precluding possible change from position if new data come in. Now I may have a biased look, but that would not surprise me that a basic outlook in life make people choose being republicain and less likely to go into science or any discipline which MIGHT make them change theior vioewpoint. Note that as human we tend top prefer to stand on our position/belief, but some are more likely to accept new data, other are less likely, and it seems those which are less likely tend to later go to your republicain end of spectrum, and those more likely to accept new data toward the other end , the democrat.

That said there is probably very good scientific among republicain, and ultra fanatical people not accepting new fact among democrat, I am only speaking of what *I* see as tendency as a foreigner among your people. Which might very well be a prejudice and wrong.

With such premise, having more democrat than republicain sound just logical.

Now beachooser, then you would have to see whether there are proportionally MORE democra in economy than in other academic study to have a data point, but even with such a data point, I dunno what sort of argument you can bring. I don't see this as a failure from democrat/republicain as much as a big failure of economist at doing basic math.

[BeAChooser]

Actually There are studies which shows that academic are more likely to be democrat than republicain. Not to make a gratuitious attack on republicain, but it does not surprise me, as it LOOKS that most of the republicain I know of at works (in germany. we have US coworker) or msot republicain I hear in the media, EVEN republicain media, are more or less either disparaging science, ignoring it, fighting it actively, or are even in a mindset precluding possible change from position if new data come in.

Here's one such study: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1276/science-survey .

But Aepervius, could the explanation for the inordinate numbers of scientists who currently say they are democrat as opposed to republican instead be a consequence of *indoctrination* that student scientists have received from democrat controlled education systems the last 30 years, and because scientists daily receive indoctrination from democrat controlled media as well? Afterall, scientists are only human.

Also, scientists have grown increasingly dependent on big government for their livelihood, making scientists beholden to the very notion of big government that is espoused by democrats. The survey indicates that 84% of scientists list a government entity as an important source of funding for their specialty. It didn't use to be this way. This decision to support science by supporting big government by supporting democrats is not a decision based on scientific principles. It's a self-serving human decision and thus may be very flawed from the point of view of whether it's a decision that is actually good for the country or humanity in the long term.

Also, note that there is a distinct difference in the politics of *pure* scientists compared to applied (i.e., more practical) scientists (called engineers). The former group tends to be far more liberal than the latter. For example, a poll in 2004 found that 39% of engineers call themselves conservatives, compared to 5% who call themselves liberal. That says something when engineers are more self-sufficient and have to be productive.

Plus, look at what has happened to science in this country since democrats began to so thoroughly dominate the schools and the politics of scientists. According to the above survey, only 27% of Americans volunteer scientific advances as one of the country’s most important achievements, compared to 47% just 10 years ago (in 1999). Now, just 17% of the public think US scientific achievements rate as best in the world. Maybe that's because US schools and US media no longer emphasis science and engineering, but social (i.e., liberal) agendas?

And finally, isn't it ironic that most scientists (55%) see the US efforts in the biomedical or health arena as the nation's greatest scientific achievement of the last 20 years, just at the time that democrats now want to end that spending and dominance? :D

[Hindmost]

I suppose it won't matter much, but most people don't realize that--at least at the primary school level, teachers are fairly evenly split around the liberal-conservative divide. Data at the college level is not really complete or properly studied.

take a look.

http://educationnext.org/american-teachers/

glenn

[BeAChooser]

I suppose it won't matter much, but most people don't realize that--at least at the primary school level, teachers are fairly evenly split around the liberal-conservative divide.

Then isn't it remarkable that the politics of teacher's unions don't reflect that split?

[Corsair 115]

Tell me, do you honestly think there is something about economics that makes economists MUCH more likely to be liberal then conservative? :rolleyes:


Why don't you start by offering precise definitions of (a) liberal and (b) conservative. Not much point talking about such things unless we have a mutally agreed upon definition.

Then you can move on to demonstrating, with evidence, why someone's political preferences automatically interferes with their ability to do their job. I'll wait over here while you collect this evidence.

In the meantime, the follow-on from your assertion, namely that economics is to only be trusted if the politics of the economist is deemed appropriate, is to question the trustworthiness of general accountants based on their political preferences. Surely, if economists can't be trusted because they have the "wrong" politics, then neither can your bookkeeper!

[lomiller]

Economists, are most likely to be evenly distributed around the center. The fact that most support the Democrats tells us that republicans have swung so far to the right that no economist anywhere near the center can support them. To suggest that this is evidence for a massive conspiracy in the US educational system is irrational to say the least.

[Aepervius]

But Aepervius, could the explanation for the inordinate numbers of scientists who currently say they are democrat as opposed to republican instead be a consequence of *indoctrination* that student scientists have received from democrat controlled education systems the last 30 years, and because scientists daily receive indoctrination from democrat controlled media as well? Afterall, scientists are only human.

That would be the case only if such phenomenon was present in the USA (democrate/republicain) but as far as I can tell , it is also present in other country like my home country. Most scientific are not conservatiste by nature, in the Uni I was. Once you think about it , it make sense. Conservatiste usually have a mind set more stuck on status-quo & non intervention, which is not the mindset of scientist especially young one. Mind you I use the traditional usage of conservatiste. Some clever gal/guy might add that many republicain ain't conservatiste in the traditional sense, and a lot of democrate are actually conservatiste without realizing.

But as I said, it might be more like a prejudice on my side , tainting my observation, than real observation.

[Aepervius]

Why don't you start by offering precise definitions of (a) liberal and (b) conservative. Not much point talking about such things unless we have a mutally agreed upon definition.

Then you can move on to demonstrating, with evidence, why someone's political preferences automatically interferes with their ability to do their job. I'll wait over here while you collect this evidence.

In the meantime, the follow-on from your assertion, namely that economics is to only be trusted if the politics of the economist is deemed appropriate, is to question the trustworthiness of general accountants based on their political preferences. Surely, if economists can't be trusted because they have the "wrong" politics, then neither can your bookkeeper!


For traditional It is not that being a democrat/repu influence your job, it is that being a conservatist you are LESS LIKELY to go into academic/science carrier. But in the very end for traditional science you do your job and that is it.

For social science it is a bit more blurried as ideology could in certain case taint the result, so you are fully right, Beachooser would have to demonstrate that the lack of interrest of conservatiste in social science, taint the full social science domain, in this case economics. It has not yet been demonstrated.

[kevinquinnyo]

This is ridiculous.

Only 20% responded, and out of that, 46% identify as democrats, 10% as republicans, and 44% as neither.

44% !!!

And you conclude that most economists are liberal?

[Matthew Best]

Perhaps if you're a right wing economist, you think that 46% of 20% is "most"?

[BeAChooser]

And you conclude that most economists are liberal?

I didn't claim that. The title of the thread is not mine. It is the moderators' ... moderation that I have reason to believe is not unbiased on this forum (see http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=153597 ). I only stated in the post which the moderator moved to this thread that economists are 3 times more likely to be "democrat than a republican" and that college professors that educate economists are biased in favor of democrats. And later in the thread I only said economists are "far more likely to be liberal than conservative". I only said that "those who teach economists are far more likely to be liberal than conservative." And I stand by all those statements. And have offered sources to support them. If you want to challenge them, then I suggest you offer some proof. You need to prove that the 44% of "neither" economists you mentioned are by far predominantly conservative. Bet you can't do it. :D

[daenku32]

Maybe this is a clue?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1lQqV1HDxXY/SOeh8KYK12I/AAAAAAAAACM/QALxAB7isnY/s1600-h/CUS955.gif (from http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12342127 )

And that might have something to do with economists being 3 times more likely to be a democrat than a republican.

And that might have something to do with the college professors that educate economists being so biased in favor of democrats.

:D

Ahem, the percentage of economists in your article that identify with Democratic party is ~45%. Which is pretty much less than half.

You wouldn't even for a moment consider the fact that most economists saw McCain's economic plan as simply inferior on purely objective reasons?

[shadron]

I find the implication in post #2 interesting in that it suggests that one's political persuasion interferes with a person whose profession it is to analyze numbers. So two plus two no longer equals four. No, now it's two plus two equals five because the adder is Democrat, or two plus two equals three if the adder is a Republican.

Well, I guess that explains it. The Democrats are inherently one part on five too generous, while the republicans are one part in three too stingy.