Gee, he has an AB in Econ from the U of C? Gosh, I don't know how I can possibly compete with that, but I'll try. Nate can try to spin, spin, spin, but it won't work. These questions were about basic positions on economic attitudes. What the Liberals did in this survey was imprint their values and ignored economic reality. And I use the word reality purposely. The economic data is overwhelming on the ideas presented here and are taught in every intro econ class, be it from a freshwater or saltwater perspective.
Nice, but no basis to assume any of these questions and their opinionated answers to be based in reality.
As for his other red herrings, Nate can talk about the distribution of voters all he wants, but the numbers of McCain and Obama voters are largely irrelevant. The Law of Large Numbers applies here and the respondents self-identified. Nate can call it "junk science", but only the most extreme answer was considered incorrect. It wasn't an issue of shading; it was black and white.
If by black and white you mean absolute distortion, then yes it's black and white.
Let's review the questions, shall we?
1) "Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable." Supply and demand. It's a law. It's wonderful to put restrictions on property development, but let's not pretend it's costless.
So vague as to be meaningless. What "restrictions" are referred to? Building safety codes, quality codes, zoning limits, environmental protections, racist discrimination against buyers/renters...? What is meant by "less affordable"? Any savings to the buyer/renter due to less restriction will be eventually paid by him/her in property taxes, home repairs, medical bills, lawsuits, poor property values and quality of life.
2) "Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services." If it's more difficult and more expensive to become a professional, it costs more. I know people like to think that making people jump through more hoops shouldn't increase the price of the service, but it does in almost every profession. Physicians and lawyers paid a lot of money to get those degrees, they're going to charge more than Medieval barbers and guys who just like to argue.
Again, the money and lives saved by avoiding charlatans, incompetents and buffoons outweighs any initial lower cost paid.
3) "Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago." Is empirically true. It may not feel that way to those who want to give ever more to our government, but our standard of living is significantly better, not just a little.
Not in America, unless you're a top 10 per center.
The median American worker is paid roughly 1/8th of what he was paid for the same work in 1963, accounting for inflation and loss of benefits. The average American family now employs 3 members to sustain a standard of living nowhere near what 1 worker sustained in the sixties.
4) "Rent control leads to housing shortages." The liberal may say, "rent control makes things more fair", but limit income/profit and of course you're going to get less product.
Time has proven this to be nonsense. Rent control leads to lower rents.
5) "A company with the largest market share is a monopoly." A monopoly is a company that owns 100% of the market share. Not 90%, not 75%, but 100%. Even a company that holds a 1% market share can dramatically affect the pricing and the market response. Liberals may feel the biggest company is evil because it exerts control on the market, but that doesn't make it a monopoly.
Semantics. A company that controls the market share controls the market. And to a great extent, controls our government.
6) "Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited." Again, this question tugs at the heart of Liberals, without engaging the brain. It demonstrates a default attitude rather than an actual condition.
All workers are exploited. This guy needs to pick up a dictionary sometime. Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited in many ways. Mostly they are exploited to keep American wages and benefits down by skirting basic moral values required by law were they employed in America.
7) "Free trade leads to unemployment." Again, empirically true, even with absolute advantage. Free trade lowers prices, which increases the wealth of a country. More wealth generally leads to more investment, and hence, more jobs. The idea that free trade necessarily leads to unemployment is preposterous.
Maybe you typo'd here, 'cause you're arguing with your own point. But there is no evidence that lower prices make a country wealthy. Maybe you're having trouble separating country from corporation?
8) "Minimum wage laws raise unemployment." Again, it's supply and demand. If you have a finite pool of money, you can only hire so many employees. If you have to pay a higher amount than the market demands, then you have to hire fewer employees.
Only a bad business would have a "finite pool of money". Our capitalistic society of supply and demand gives a good business all the money it needs to fairly reward the employees responsible for it's success. The higher the minimum wage, the higher % of good businesses we have, making our economy stronger. The continual falling of the minimum wage over the last 40 years compared to inflation has been the death of American industry. Made in America used to be what America was proud of. It was why we were once a super power. Any business that even cares what the minimum wage is needs to fail and stop being a deficit to our society.
