In the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, Zeljka Buturovic (Columbia University PhD in psychology and research associate at Zogby International) and Daniel Klein (econ prof at George Mason U and associate fellow and academic advisor at the Ratio Institute in Stockholm) try to correlate savvy in economics with other variables, including education, ideology and 2008 vote. Here's Table 2:
source: 7 Econ J. Watch 174, 184 (Table 2) (May 2010)
Thus law prof and Volokh Conspiracy contributor Todd Zywicki concludes "The Further Left You Are the Less You Know About Economics":
It would be hard to find a set of propositions that would meet with such a degree of consensus among economists to rival these propositions--which boils down to supply restrictions raise prices and price controls create shortages. These are issues on which economic theory is exceedingly clear, well-confirmed over decades of empirical support, and with a degree of unarguable consensus among trained scholars in the field. Apparently the existence of a "consensus" among trained scholars on certain policy issues is less important on some issues than others.So why do progressives and the media rely on experts insisting we must act now to slow man-made climate change yet loudly, and wrongly, dismiss free trade statistics (or, like Obama, flip-flop)? Because they place "An Inconvenient Truth" and "Avatar" ahead of actual outcomes of liberalized trade. (Remember, Obama promised to promote only policies that worked.) Put differently, they're environmental socialists but economic mercantilists.
Trade and growth remain the best anti-poverty programs. But progressives dismiss economists and other experts. Apparently, blue-colored, computer-created effects are more equal than educated and actual-human experts.
(via Protein Wisdom)