That Democrats are generally illiterate about basic economics is not a matter of mere conjecture. In 2010, Daniel B. Klein and Zeljka Buturovic analyzed answers provided by a random sample of 4,835 Americans to a list of eight questions about economics. The results, which noted the party affiliation of the respondents, were not flattering to our friends on the left. “Those responding Democratic averaged 4.59 incorrect answers. Republicans averaged 1.61 incorrect, and Libertarians 1.26 incorrect.” And these were not arcane questions. They involved elementary concepts, like the effect of price controls, covered in any Econ 101 course taught at the lowliest community college and even some of the better high schools. Yet the average Democrat respondent got nearly 60 percent of the answers wrong.
It is precisely this kind of ignorance that led so many Democrats to believe Obamacare would somehow render health care less expensive. One of the first items covered in any introductory economics course is that the price of any good or service will rise if the quantity demanded increases without an accompanying increase in the available supply of that commodity. Nonetheless, it held no message for the average Democrat that the supply side of the equation was ignored by “reform,” though it increased the number of patients in the health system as well as the range of services to which they are entitled. The issue of supply and demand was utterly lost on Obamacare’s Democrat supporters. Thus, at the time of its passage, fully 78 percent of them favored the law. Even now, 52 percent still support it.
This is typical of the ignorance that was on full display in the president’s speech the other day.
If Obama does win re-election, he’ll likely preside over four more years of slow recovery, protect the Affordable Care Act until people get used to its benefits, protect Roe-v-Wade with another court pick or two, and go down in history as the best Democratic president since FDR. Come 2016 we’ll regret the 22nd Amendment.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah…[take a breath]…hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah…
No, this isn’t about how Romney feels about Newt’s latest poll numbers, but how Wisconsin is trying to abscond with Michigan’s image. I have to admit, though, that it’s pretty funny how she says they point at their hand to show where they live (a long-time lower-peninsula behavior for Wolverines). This calls for a contest to determine just what Wisconsin is actually shaped like. It’s sort of a Rorschach test.
An interesting article on human psychology. I may think about how this plays into issues of human spaceflight safety, for both professional and recreational space travelers, for a couple papers I’m working on.
Negotiators at the conference are considering “a new tax on every foreign currency transaction in the world,” according to the Center for a Constructive Alternative (CFACT). “Every time you travel abroad, you’ll have to pay a climate tax,” explains CFACT, the group that released the “Climategate” emails. “More importantly, every time we import goods, every time we export our fine products (think jobs) we will do so with a climate tax skimming off the top.”
European countries would evade much of the tax burden, however, because “transactions within the Eurozone won’t have to pay this new tax.”
CFACT suggests that Obama is open [sic] implementing this tax and similar policies in the absence of a full climate treaty, which would require congressional approval. “We have learned that while many have discounted this conference, knowing that a full climate treaty is difficult to achieve especially with a U.S. Senate that will not vote to ratify,” CFACT says. “Obama and his fellow climate travelers are working around the Senate and planning to stick America with the bill.”
OK, I have no doubt that they’d like to do it, but how would it work without getting a treaty through the Senate? How would they actually enforce it, and what would happen when a bank or an individual got a judge to issue an injunction against it?
In which the Occumorons in San Diego hold a seminar extolling the virtues of communism. As noted, this is because we allowed the left to take over the academy in the sixties.
?