Econ 101

[denuseri]

Well by the summation of the survey in the op, liberal bias has contributed to economic misfortune.

The liberals are supposed to hold the majority sway over education as well so... maby thats why education standards and practices are so fudged up.

Though imho one should avoid a blame it all on any one faction kind of mentality.

I didn't see a jibe in Tantrics post myself, he just pointed out that the sophism used in politics is rampant in both camps is all and that for things to change for the better it would be really benifical for those kinds of tactics to be put aside.

[chuck]

Well by the summation of the survey in the op, liberal bias has contributed to economic misfortune.

The author definitely points in that direction, but only states that "that many of our leaders and their constituents are economically unenlightened" and goes on to state that that fact may be responsible for our economic troubles. He relies on the reader to associate that statement with the findings presented in the body of his piece.

The liberals are supposed to hold the majority sway over education as well so... maby thats why education standards and practices are so fudged up.

That is my belief. From the results of this survey, it is easy to surmise that the educational system is teaching doctrine instead of fact.

Though imho one should avoid a blame it all on any one faction kind of mentality.

I hate absolutes and can't see placing all the blame anywhere. I do place a lot of the blame on the liberal educational system and I've seen nothing logical that better explains why much of the populace support positions that are detrimental to our economy.

I didn't see a jibe in Tantrics post myself,

I read the word "cute" in the context he used it as derisive. If I misinterpreted his intent, I owe him an apology.

he just pointed out that the sophism used in politics is rampant in both camps is all and that for things to change for the better it would be really benifical for those kinds of tactics to be put aside.

He equated the report with claims of similar but opposing points of view but has yet back up his claim or provide an example. Regardless, pointing to a flaw elsewhere is not a valid way to address a flaw that is being addressed. I agree that unsupported derisive comments is not a beneficial tactic and should be put aside. It would indeed be beneficial that, if there is an issue with the survey and/or the article that describes it, there will be an honest critique of it and not just a "cute" dismissal.

[denuseri]

The author definitely points in that direction, but only states that "that many of our leaders and their constituents are economically unenlightened" and goes on to state that that fact may be responsible for our economic troubles. He relies on the reader to associate that statement with the findings presented in the body of his piece.

A cute use of sophism imho and not an all that subtle one eaither in regards to the idea that liberalism is the perpetrator or our economic demise, of course we should seperate liberals the political group from liberals the education system.

That is my belief. From the results of this survey, it is easy to surmise that the educational system is teaching doctrine instead of fact.

It's been doing that since way back when they switched away from the classical educational model to the liberal one so I personally didn't require the article for that when I can see it myself first hand.

I hate absolutes and can't see placing all the blame anywhere. I do place a lot of the blame on the liberal educational system and I've seen nothing logical that better explains why much of the populace support positions that are detrimental to our economy.

It is possible that the exonomic sistuation also developed into something too complex for "directed" evolution when one is dealing from a limited perspective.

I read the word "cute" in the context he used it as derisive. If I misinterpreted his intent, I owe him an apology.

I am most sure it was not ment as a personal jibe.

He equated the report with claims of similar but opposing points of view but has yet back up his claim or provide an example.

He simply pointed out that one can quite literally say the same exact thing about the other side by simple substitution of a few nouns etc. I am assuming that the colleges in question are well known rivals. (Insert conservative for liberal and minus out regulation for de-regulation etc etc)

Regardless, pointing to a flaw elsewhere is not a valid way to address a flaw that is being addressed.

Why not? Socrates did it as a matter of routine if I recall correctly.

I agree that unsupported derisive comments is not a beneficial tactic and should be put aside. It would indeed be beneficial that, if there is an issue with the survey and/or the article that describes it, there will be an honest critique of it and not just a "cute" dismissal.

Why how cute. Does this mean we are all ready to discuss the topic instead of weather or not anyone has offended someone by their choice of adjectives?

[chuck]

...we should seperate liberals the political group from liberals the education system.

It is my contention that the educational system is producing the liberals in the political group.

It's [educational system teaching doctrine instead of fact] been doing that since way back when they switched away from the classical educational model to the liberal one so I personally didn't require the article for that when I can see it myself first hand.

I'm glad you see that. Was there anything in the article that informed you of something that you didn't already know?

It is possible that the exonomic sistuation also developed into something too complex for "directed" evolution when one is dealing from a limited perspective.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that the economy is too complex for basics to be relevant?

He simply pointed out that one can quite literally say the same exact thing about the other side by simple substitution of a few nouns etc.

He made that claim and as yet has not had the opportuinty or inclination to support it.

Regardless, pointing to a flaw elsewhere is not a valid way to address a flaw that is being addressed.

Why not? Socrates did it as a matter of routine if I recall correctly.

So, for example, if one person's addition problem is incorrect, a valid response is to point out that someone else missed a subtraction problem?

Why how cute.

Interpreted as derisive.

Does this mean we are all ready to discuss the topic instead of weather or not anyone has offended someone by their choice of adjectives?

Apparently not, but since we already agree on the major point [the educational system teaches doctrine instead of fact], it probably doesn't matter.

[denuseri]

It is my contention that the educational system is producing the liberals in the political group.

Not as much as the parents do, but it does try.

I'm glad you see that. Was there anything in the article that informed you of something that you didn't already know?

Well I had never heard of then term "economic enlightenment" before and I must admit I still dont see (even after visiting Mr Klein's website I still don't know "exactly what he or his lovely assitsant" think the exact meaning of it is eaither. I do know that the way the questions are worded that they are purposfully being misleading to a certian degree and that the survey in and of itself doesnt take out a large enough crossection to make me believe in its so called results. (In other words it certiantly requires more peer-review)

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that the economy is too complex for basics to be relevant?

No I am saying that the economy as simple as it is in its basic premise of (this for that) has become to complex to be completely understood let alone manipulated with any real degree of perdictability from the limited perspective of those currently claiming to understand it. Like blindfolded old men Smith, Malthus, Keynes, Freedman to Marx...all have only managed to describe or bring forth only a small portion of the elephant they are attempting to feel out.

He made that claim and as yet has not had the opportuinty or inclination to support it.

By what...providing some specific paper by some such other individual? That kind of thing is allready prevelent amongts any pundant of the democratics economic policies isnt it?

So, for example, if one person's addition problem is incorrect, a valid response is to point out that someone else missed a subtraction problem?

If the sumation of the former is dependent upon the sumation of the later, then yes.

Interpreted as derisive.

Good then I made my point about such things.

Apparently not, but since we already agree on the major point [the educational system teaches doctrine instead of fact], it probably doesn't matter.

Its a long running debate in eaither event. Check out the book "The Great Conversation" sometime it directly deals with the subject.

[chuck]

Originally Posted by chuck View Post

It is my contention that the educational system is producing the liberals in the political group.

Not as much as the parents do, but it does try.

It is the job of parents to instill or pass on their philosophy to their children. It is the job of the educational system to educate the children with facts. I object when the educational system teaches dogma and distorts the facts that it presents.

I do know that the way the questions are worded that they are purposfully being misleading to a certian degree and that the survey in and of itself doesnt take out a large enough crossection to make me believe in its so called results. (In other words it certiantly requires more peer-review)

Do you have an illustration to back up your contention that the questions are misleading? For example the question about the definition of monopoly (A company with the largest market share is a monopoly) seems pretty straight forward to me. Even if misleading, why would it tend to mislead liberals more than conservatives? (If it does mislead liberals more than conservatives, then one could conclude that liberals are more easily misled... something I believe but I'm not prepared to back it up). Your reply caused me to go to Gallop's website and from their "Survey Methods" it appears they do take samples from around 3500 to 4000 interviews. (The sample from the article was a little over 4800). Do you require peer-review for all the issues you form an opinion on or do you use it as an excuse to blow off a study that you don't want to consider?

...I am saying that the economy as simple as it is in its basic premise of (this for that) has become to complex to be completely understood let alone manipulated with any real degree of perdictability from the limited perspective of those currently claiming to understand it.

And from the article, those claiming to understand it when they really don't understand it tend to be liberals.

He made that claim and as yet has not had the opportunity or inclination to support it.

By what...providing some specific paper by some such other individual? That kind of thing is allready prevelent amongts any pundant of the democratics economic policies isnt it?

Hopefully, yes. There are multiple examples daily of pundits, politicians, and entertainers who state unequivocally how stupid conservatives are and they offer no logic or substantiation. Just today, there's a quote where Kathy Griffin on Larry King equates a "strong, conservative person" to "idiot." It is the airheads who get the air time and publicity and I see them all the time. However, I don't often see criticism of conservatives that is backed up by even a fraction of background as what was presented in the article. That is why I asked TantricSoul for an example.

So, for example, if one person's addition problem is incorrect, a valid response is to point out that someone else missed a subtraction problem?

If the sumation of the former is dependent upon the sumation of the later, then yes.

Too bad. That means you are spending your resources to find flaws instead of confronting those that are already known.

Interpreted as derisive.

Good then I made my point about such things.

That too is unfortunate as the point you made is that you believe derisive comments are a desirable way to hold a discussion.

Its a long running debate in eaither event. Check out the book "The Great Conversation" sometime it directly deals with the subject.

Thanks for the reference. I'll keep it in mind, but defer for the moment as we seem to agree on this point anyway.

[denuseri]

Originally Posted by chuck View Post
It is the job of parents to instill or pass on their philosophy to their children. It is the job of the educational system to educate the children with facts. I object when the educational system teaches dogma and distorts the facts that it presents.

I agree whole heartedly, I am totally against teachers attempting to politically influence children with thier own dogmatic beliefs.

Do you have an illustration to back up your contention that the questions are misleading?

I would say in the tradition of Vonager "Look here is my picture of an asshole" but I fear that it would somehow be taken the wrong way. My contention need no other "evidence" for its veracity from my perspective than my word good Sir.

For example the question about the definition of monopoly (A company with the largest market share is a monopoly) seems pretty straight forward to me. Even if misleading, why would it tend to mislead liberals more than conservatives? (If it does mislead liberals more than conservatives, then one could conclude that liberals are more easily misled... something I believe but I'm not prepared to back it up). Your reply caused me to go to Gallop's website and from their "Survey Methods" it appears they do take samples from around 3500 to 4000 interviews. (The sample from the article was a little over 4800). Do you require peer-review for all the issues you form an opinion on or do you use it as an excuse to blow off a study that you don't want to consider?

Nope, but I allready answered this once before.


And from the article, those claiming to understand it when they really don't understand it tend to be liberals.

According to the couple who made the onesided decisons on what was good or bad in the way of answers for their study.

Hopefully, yes. There are multiple examples daily of pundits, politicians, and entertainers who state unequivocally how stupid conservatives are and they offer no logic or substantiation. Just today, there's a quote where Kathy Griffin on Larry King equates a "strong, conservative person" to "idiot." It is the airheads who get the air time and publicity and I see them all the time.

Looks like you found your own evidence. Isnt the internet such a wonderful thing?


However, I don't often see criticism of conservatives that is backed up by even a fraction of background as what was presented in the article. That is why I asked TantricSoul for an example.

I do believe he even replied to you himself.

Too bad. That means you are spending your resources to find flaws instead of confronting those that are already known.

Not really sugar. I was just pointing out the obvious. Dont you worry, it was hardely any trouble at all.

That too is unfortunate as the point you made is that you believe derisive comments are a desirable way to hold a discussion.

Well like Tantric said earlier, its hard to comunicate effectively when the reader sees what he or she wants to see, instead of what was actually written.

Thanks for the reference. I'll keep it in mind, but defer for the moment as we seem to agree on this point anyway.

It's an excellent...yet very long "eye opening" read, not nearly so hard as wadeing through some parts of the ab urbe condita by Livy or anything though but takes some considerable time to get through.