Dilbert author Scott Adams commissioned a survey of 500 economists, asking them which candidate they prefer on a variety of issues. The results are ... not very interesting.
Short story: economists prefer Obama. Medium story: Democratic economists prefer Obama, Republican economists prefer McCain, and independents swing Obama (46-39 percent).
Breakdown of the 500, drawn from the nonpartisan American Economic Association:
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.
On the issues beloved of Grist readers (O=Obama, M=McCain, ND=no difference):
Energy: O-61 percent, M-22 percent, ND-17 percent
Encouraging Technology/innovation: O-43 percent, M-23 percent, ND-34 percent
Environmental policy: O-72 percent, M-9 percent, ND-19 percent
Lessons I draw from this:
- Most economists are Democrats. Hm.
- Economists have no secret magical reality-decoder ring; they vote their party preferences like everyone else.
- I'll blog any ol' thing.
Comments
View as Flat
stevenearlsalmony Posted 5:05 am
18 Sep 2008
It appears as if the family of humanity lives in a relatively small, evidently finite and noticeably frangible planetary home. If Earth is bounded in space-time; if Earth's limited resources are being recklessly dissipated; and if Earth's environs are being irreversibly degraded by relentless pollution, can an adequate, reality-oriented case be made by economists for the sustainability of the colossal scale and fully expected, seemingly endless growth of the artificially designed, manmade global economy that is rampantly overspreading our planetary home?
Do economists still believe that the Earth is flat, that Earth is like a mother's teat at which the human species can perpetually suckle, or that the planet we inhabit is a cornucopia?
If so, please explain.
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php
Permalink
Spearhead Posted 8:05 am
18 Sep 2008
For example, some great research done at the U of Maryland by Robert Costanza concluded that the Earth's atmosphere is worth approximately $33 trillion. If the prices of gasoline, carbon energy, CFC's, etc. were priced accurately, the damage they inflict on the atmosphere would be accounted for in their market price, making them less attractive than other alternatives. However, the current market price, let's say of gasoline, does not reflect the true "cost" of the good.
There has been some amazing groundwork layed in natural resource and environmental economics lately, and it is certainly in any greens interest to learn how simple economics can make our world a much better place. I would recommend reading some literature by authors like Costanza, Terry Anderson, and PJ Hill for a start. The later two will focus on free-markets, but may open your eyes.
Permalink
Bryan P Posted 3:33 pm
26 Nov 2008
Permalink