Progressives are economic retards

[Hauldren Collider]

Maybe so, but the original job is downgraded substantially in the process.

sigh

You are inflating the value of labor by forcing companies to pay for employees in first world countries.

[Hauldren Collider]

I think gribbler's point is that progressives aren't only economically retarded; they also can't understand simple questions. Good point.

That was the impression I was getting from Gribbler's argument as well.

[ricketyclik]

sigh

You are inflating the value of labor by forcing companies to pay for employees in first world countries.

You are obviously not old enough to remember when globalisation was sold to the general population on the grounds that the 3rd world will benefit from 1st world pay and conditions. Not only is the opposite true, but - based on your post - embraced by the new generation.

[Hauldren Collider]

the pagan god of economics is weeping right now, ricketyclik

[RGBVideo]

Have you noticed everyone is "deliberately misreading" things? What he's saying makes perfect sense -- it can be read both ways.

No, it really can't.

It's a question asking of a definition of a word. "If A is true in a company, then company is a monopoly".

The definition of a monopoly is "If B is true in a company, then company is a monopoly".

A (highest market share) sometimes leads to B (controlling market share), but since (and as long as) A is not B, the original definition is false.

Why are you defending stupidity?

[ricketyclik]

the pagan god of economics is weeping right now, ricketyclik

One of the problems with economics as a science is that it presumes that finding the cheapest input costs is the optimum solution.

[ShaneWalter]

I think free trade could cause both employment and unemployment.

If a free trade agreement causes 10,000 people to lose jobs in Ontario because several manufacturing plants close down, but also causes 12,000 new jobs in Alberta due to increased markets for oil, it has caused a net creation of 2,000 jobs. Some would argue that, therefore, the free trade agreement causes employment. This is, of course true. There are now 2,000 more jobs in Canada than before. Yet, if you asked, why did those autoworkers in Ontario lose their job, the answer would invariably be "because of the free trade agreement." The free trade agreement, while causing an increase in employment, has still caused people to lose their job; therefore, it has caused unemployment.

The problem is that the question does not say "Does free trade cause an increase in unemployment". The survery merely asks us if free trade "causes unemployment." That question absolutely is subjective, because it can be read two different ways. If I had the question on the exam, I'd ask the prof to clarify if he meant an increase in unemployment.

It is the same way with the question about exploitation. Exploit, when used colloquially, generally has a negative connotation. In more formal uses, there is not necessarily a negative implication. Again, if I had the question on an exam, I'd ask what exactly does the prof mean by exploit? In this one though, even with clarification, it is arguable conclusion either way. There have been cases where undemocratic, destructive regimes have been propped up by corporate interests. Still, I'd generally agree that third world workers employed by American corporations (or any corporation based in the developed world) have better working conditions than they otherwise would have.

Realistically though, even if these questions were rephrased in a way to make them less subjective, I think the results would still be similar. Progressives and liberals would answer the questions wrong much more often than conservatives and libertarians. I don't think this shows that conservatives and libertarians have oodles more economics knowledge than progressives, however. I think it just shows that people often can't (or won't) think very deeply about their views. A libertarian looks at a question on this survey and thinks "Well of course minimum wage laws cause higher unemployment. Unemployment is bad so obviously government interference in the markets would cause unemployment." A liberal looks at the same question and says "Well, people deserve to have a living wage. I can't possibly see how that would cause unemployment." Both of them just regurgitate what they've been spoon fed. The libertarian is right, but he may not entirely understand why he is right.

I used to visit a message board called freedominion (basically the Canadian version of freerepublic) and it is fairly right wing. In 2008, when the price of oil surpassed $100, the general consensus on that forum was that oil producers should be penalized for "profiteering." This even though Canada benefited from high oil prices. I heard great lines such as "demand on a commodity shouldn't really effect the price significantly. Normally, you should sell a commodity at the price it costs you to produce it plus a small profit margin." Or perhaps even a better line was "the price should only rise if there is a shortage. There's no shortage -- I can go the gas station and get gas right now without a line up! Therefore the price should not be going up at all." The point I'm making is that regardless of where people stand on the political spectrum, most people don't have a very good grasp of economics. Just because people's ideological bend happens to push them to answer questions a certain way, does not prove that they actually understand the answers they are giving.

[Asher]

No, it really can't.

It's a question asking of a definition of a word.

Okay, you're going to be pedantic.

1) It wasn't a question, it was a statement, people were asked if they agree with it or not. I would say "agree", but the CORRECT answer is "it depends".
2) It's ambiguous in many ways. I read it as you did, and as most here probably did given the formal knowledge of what the 'monopoly' definition is. But given the target audience, you cannot make that assumption

It was an awfully worded survey, there's no argument you can possibly make otherwise. You are defending stupidity here, not me.

[KrazyHorse]

The most plausibly defensible statements above are the exploitation and free trade statements. The first because it may be contended that some employees have been forcibly coerced into their jobs, the second because the distributional effects of trade are unclear without empirical evidence. Certainly trade increases overall economic well-being, but it can also increase inequality (similar to technological advances). The rest are pretty much cut-and-dried.

[ricketyclik]

This is the same argument that is made against automation.
like, robots building cars.

Cheaper production means that the people in the first world can specialize in other higher value activities like designing computers or whatnot.

I should have picked up on this earlier. This assumes two things: first, that there are higher skilled jobs to move in to, and second, that the person displaced, say, a t-shirt sewer, has or can acquire the skills to move up.

Neither are necessarily true.

[epmd]

I should have picked up on this earlier. This assumes two things: first, that there are higher skilled jobs to move in to, and second, that the person displaced, say, a t-shirt sewer, has or can acquire the skills to move up.

Neither are necessarily true.

Whose fault is it they have neither? Certainly not the company's nor the government's. There is no "right" to a job.

[Hauldren Collider]

That said, I support right to work

[ricketyclik]

Whose fault is it they have neither? Certainly not the company's nor the government's. There is no "right" to a job.

Sure, but the outcome is still sub-optimal.

[ricketyclik]

I think free trade could cause both employment and unemployment...

Nice post Shane

[SlowwHand]

That said, I support right to work

Absolutely.