It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Poll: Liberals, Democrats flunk Economics 101

page: 7
10
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by SeriouslyGuys
 



"The adoption of some evolutionarily novel ideas makes some sense in terms of moving the species forward," said George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey, who was not involved in the study. "It also makes perfect sense that more intelligent people -- people with, sort of, more intellectual firepower -- are likely to be the ones to do that."


1. Notice he does not post the questions asked in the sample, whereas the OP's did.

2. Notice that as an evolutionary psychologist, he is using evolutionary psychology for the basis of determined intelligence.

3. Consider a liberal professor did a "sample" and found that his "sample" proved his life long work correct entirely without peer review.



According to the professors own doctrine, Liberal Progressiveness is considered "evolution" in our species, and that it takes a more intelligent person to move species forward, thus liberals are intellectually superior for embracing progressive ideology.

Probably the most biased, unscientific, lamest studies I've ever read.




posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by MY2Commoncentsworth
 


I wasn't working in the department dealing those crappy dodgy derivatives...so no, I wasn't directly responsible. But of course we always had more information than "normal" people, so in a sense we had a huge advantage and capitalized on it.

As for "the left dividing people into rich and poor"...that's not a tactic only the left uses. The right pretends to be the party of the "average patriotic American hockey mom" while being in the pocket of big business. If you go back in history and check who gave those big corporations the power they have (and abused) now, you'll find out that the large majority of that was given by republicans. It started with Reagan...you know, the guy some say was a good president. He WAS a good president...for the corporations, but definitely not for the average American.

I'm not complaining because it obviously allowed me to take a 2yr vacation, but I have to admit that overall, it hurt the American people in the medium/long term. I felt guilty at first, but then figured the corporations only got that power because of government officials voted for by the people...so in effect, the people got what they deserved. If you vote for someone like Louisiana's governor who even though there's a huge environmental crisis threatening thousands of people's livelihoods shouts "drill baby drill" because he's in the pocket of big oil business...you DESERVE to get screwed over! Just wish the environment wouldn't suffer in the process, because it's one of the aspects that make the US beautiful.

Just look at who blocked most of the crucial financial reform measures that would have really benefited the average American...it's pretty much all Republicans who did that. Right now, the "reform" bill we have is the laughing stock on Wall Street, and you can take my word that within 10yrs, we'll have another crisis triggered by the same issues...

The US isn't socialist (like Beck tells us over an over again), and it's not conservative either...it's governed by CORPORATIONS that use politicians as puppets through lobbyists. The problem is that politicians are career politicians in most cases, so they fully focus on their own greed instead of working for the people...at least most of them do.

A lot of people always say "free market is best" or "communism is bad", when in reality both are theoretical concepts that might look good on paper, but it doesn't really work in reality. The free market doesn't work because it assumes people act RATIONALLY (and not only driven by short-term greed), which just isn't the case. It also assumes people are INTELLIGENT...and we all know the large majority of people aren't intelligent to survive a free market. How many people in the US have knowledge about economics and finance that goes beyond what the news shove down their throats? 5% maybe, tops? A free market doesn't work under those conditions. What WILL happen is that a select few that are "in the know" get really really rich, and the rest loses out...which is exactly what happened.

From a $$$ point of view I don't want more regulation because I work in circles that can make the market work for them. But those people represent a tiny minority, and the large majority of US citizens lose out due to deregulation. So the patriotic thing to do would be to ask for MORE regulation because it will help the average American.

Do you see the Republicans ask for more regulation to help the people?? NO, they're doing the exact opposite! Why? Because most of them are in the pocket of lobbyists and big business! They're not patriots, they're greedy, that's all...

The perverse thing is, they're selling you that deregulation under the disguise of "they wanna take away your freedom"...and thousands of sheeple follow they blindly just because of the "freedom" buzzword. In reality, it HURTS the people!!

[edit on 10-6-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   
I've seen quite a few of these US history and economics tests in the last six years or so and what they amount to = push poll based on extreme right free market pro corporate views already proven to have had a disastrous impact on middle class USA. Some may go in the other direction I've yet to see one.

Learn to identify a push poll when you see one.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


"As for "the left dividing people into rich and poor"...that's not a tactic only the left uses. The right pretends to be the party of the "average patriotic American hockey mom" while being in the pocket of big business. If you go back in history and check who gave those big corporations the power they have (and abused) now, you'll find out that the large majority of that was given by republicans. It started with Reagan...you know, the guy some say was a good president. He WAS a good president...for the corporations, but definitely not for the average American."

Geez, I'm so tired of the old "Left V: Right" nonsense. The majority of those supposedly on the "Right" are actually right smack in the middle as far true American values so, yes, they are the "average patriotic American hockey mom." The Left is the main force behind the modern political "plantation," whereby people are paid to be poor, and they like it just fine, while the taxpayer pays for it. Big businesses are the ones who provide a large percentage of jobs, and their investments allow for other people the funds to start their small businesses. Do the research; Reagans use of basic economic principles gave America almost 90 months of economic growth never before seen in the modern world.

The problem is this: Democrats see every new birth as another mouth to feed, and cloth, and teach... another burden on the state and on the limited amount of available wealth. They want everyone to cross the finish line at the same time, even though they didn't participate in the race.

True Conservatives see every new birth as another possible source of genius and wealth. They want everyone to start the race at the same time.
Wealth and poverty. Both can't be bad. Wealth is the solution to poverty, as history shows.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
They want everyone to start the race at the same time.


Then you must have a list of conservatives that give away their wealth to underprivileged children at such a rate as to match that of their own offspring so that everyone is starting together, right?



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
I've thought about this subject since I read the first report of it.

I've come to the conclusion that liberal's tend to think with their heart. So when faced with a question about rent control they view it from the side of a poor person who can't afford an increase in rent. So, the view from the heart is the landlord has enough money, but the poor person doesn't. Houses already exist so rent control would just help the poor, not have a negative impact on rental housing availability. This can lead to a wrong answer in strictly economic terms.

You could have the same sort of thinking on some of the other questions. ie Mandatory licensing of of professional services increases the price of those services. The unenlightened answer is disagree. But if you're thinking with your heart, your logic might say that if you don't have standards for professional services the cost to society of shoddy services would be higher than if there were no licensing requirements.

So, I think that liberals are using a convoluted thinking process to arrive at the "unenlightened" answer.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by zappafan1
 


That's bull#, sorry. If you check out who's better off since Reagan, you'll realize that the average American as well as the poor are off WORSE now than they were before Reagan...the only ones who are better off are the richest 2%.

And you saying that big business benefits small business is also wrong. Was Walmart good for small businesses? How is Goldman Sachs (who were advising every president since Reagan) helping small business?

I know people like Beck/Palin/Bush/etc tried to tell you the exact opposite, but the reality is, they lied! Just look at how many tax reductions the richest 2% got since Reagan, and now compare that with how much the tax of average people was reduced.

The reason for that is that politicians want CAMPAIGN FUNDS from the big companies. Because the one candidate with the most funds always wins (look it up). They don't give a rat's ass about small business...why do you think all the bailout money Bush/Obama handed out went to big business?

America isn't governed by republicans or democrats...it's governed by BIG BUSINESS.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
According to the professors own doctrine, Liberal Progressiveness is considered "evolution" in our species, and that it takes a more intelligent person to move species forward, thus liberals are intellectually superior for embracing progressive ideology.

Probably the most biased, unscientific, lamest studies I've ever read.


You mean of course until the survey in this OP..right?


Originally posted by maybereal11
Here is the actual Intro to the Survey..


A number of controversial interpretive issues attend our measure, including: (1) our designation of enlightened answers; (2) an asymmetry in sometimes challenging leftist mentalities without ever specifically challenging conservative and libertarian mentalities; (3) our simple eight-question test is merely a baseline and does not gauge the heights of economic enlightenment; and (4) a concern about response bias (namely, that less intelligent people would be less likely to participate in the survey).

econjwatch.org...

From the Actual Survey..in PDF on the page above


Here again we should acknowledge that none of the eight questions
challenge typical conservative or libertarian policy positions, and that had some such questions been included, the measured economic-enlightenment means by ideological groups may well have been somewhat different.


A survey, by it's own admission, that is tailored to show a weakness in those leaning left will show just that.

Carry on with the circus of idiotic rhetoric....


I think that was the point...demonstrating that Bias susrveys are available to support any ideology you CHOOSE to believe in.

Who said it? ...There are lies, damn lies...and statistics?







 
10
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join