University study finds that self identified leftists don't understand basic economics

Although I did not say what you quoted in such context, it is nevertheless more than you can honestly say. Not that you say very much honestly.

 

In other words-

LOL!!!!!

 

Down to senselessly stammering like a deteriorating, bitter old man?

 

=================
Nice points Mav 88;
they also tend to hate black conservatives. Remember when they tried to news/lynch Justice Clarence Thomas.

They also like to slander consrvatives with racism or sexism false labels. remember When Dianne Sawyer asked Senator Barack ''Is America more racist or sexist ?''-clearly implying if someone did not vote for him or Mrs Clinton, it was racist or sexist.

I wouldnt call people racist who didnt support Justice Thomas Thomas;
but using left logic they would have to be.



Also some who are liberal or left leaning DO understand business quite well...

 

Ugh, bad day for Gabriella, eh? Getting told what an idiot you are by a crowd of skilled professionals and phsicicsts... LOL!!!

 

All right, a heavy hitting theorist.

UVA? Me- Rochester, nonlinear optics. No, they do not care, I just needed to clarify that I am a scientist.

People seem to forget that science has been assaulted from the left as much as it has from the religious fundies. I'll never forget being invited to a faculty Christmas party and having some dingbat english professor talking about how science was another human belief system on par with all the other crap the humanities push out the door, or how the afrocentrists said the ancient egyptians used semiconductor technology. Stalin forbade soviets from studying quantum theory because it conflicted with communism...

Well anyway, from where I sit observing the world, liberals do more damage to prosperity and freedom than the right wing wackos do. Certainly there are intelligent liberals who know business as Murray says, but the net result of their macro policies is always the same predictable dismal rubbish.

 

Video: Dem Rep ends up with egg on his face in Bernanke hearing
POSTED AT 10:55 AM ON JUNE 11, 2010 BY ED MORRISSEY

The first thing law schools teach litigators is to not ask questions without knowing the answer. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) never went to law school — and it shows in this exchange from Wednesday between himself and Ben Bernanke, the Fed chair, who was testifying on Capitol Hill. Connolly wanted to slap at his Republican colleagues who want spending cuts to bring the budget into balance by getting Bernanke to say that there isn’t enough money in the budget to cut, and that revenue has to be increased to end deficits. Unfortunately, as Liberty Central notes, Connolly got broadsided by Bernanke, who responded that “of course!” the budget could get cut — if Congress would just do it:

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hNpOGgV0P1c&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hNpOGgV0P1c&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

The entire premise of his question is absurd. The budget for FY2010 exceeds $3.8 trillion, which means that we don’t have to eliminate “half the ledger sheet” in order to close a $1.3 trillion deficit. We only need to eliminate a third of the ledger sheet. That $3.8 trillion, by the way, is $1.1 trillion more than the last budget from a Republican Congress, FY2007. If we returned to the FY2007 budget, we’d be almost all of the way there just by eliminating all of the spending increases inserted after Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took charge of the budgeting process.

The real story of the deficit is that the budget has grown by almost double in the space of 10 years, from $2 trillion in FY2000 to almost $4 trillion today despite inflation being practically nonexistent the entire time. We’re not in deficits because the American taxpayer doesn’t shove enough money into Washington’s Leviathan maw; we’re in deficit because Washington can’t stop spending more and more money. Gerry Connolly is a poster boy for that problem.

 

One of the key things that's missing, imo, is a serious but simple explanation how money removed from the private enterprise domain and into the public domain loses a lot of its speed and effectiveness causing jobs to be lost.

As government takes the leadership in many aspects of business (eg, provides more and more services) it needs additional funds (ie, raises taxes = takes money away from individuals and private enterprises) thereby lowering employment and slowing down our economy.

The understanding exists (developed and reiterated ad nauseum during the cold war) but academics and media are reluctant to put it forth for political reasons.

 

Right, and do you think the democratic brain trust would care or understand? The representative in the video doesn't understand how government works, how's he supposed grasp something as complicated as return on investment?

 

QUESTION: How is is that you "scientists" accept a study at face value when its validity is legitimately questioned and its underlying bias clearly exposed?

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/are-you-smarter-than-george-mason.html

ANSWER: I'm guessing correspondence degrees with no exams required and credits for life experience.