The conservative distrust of expertise
It appears to me that conservatives are more likely than are liberals to question the findings of experts in a given field, and often prefer to trust their own analysis or instincts. I want to put forth a few examples of this tendency, discuss the pros and cons of such an approach, and then examine the origins of this ingrained conservative distrust of expertise. Caveat: this discussion simply cannot be had without resorting to generalizations and stereotypes, but I think there is insight to be gained nonetheless.
First, a few examples. On global warming, liberals are quick to quote the scientific consensus, quick to reference the IPCC findings; they align themselves with the experts in the field. Conservatives, in contrast, are unwilling to accept a result simply because it is backed by academic credentials, and are more willing to consider the scientific arguments advanced by non-traditional sources (think-tanks, for example). On evaluating Iraq, liberals place significant emphasis on the analysis of military officials, from generals down to privates, and are dismissive of the opinions of those who lack military experience. Conservatives are more likely to conduct their own investigations (via first-hand reporting or just googling) and to discount advice from long-serving military officials. On education, liberals generally trust teachers to prepare students, while conservatives are more likely to homeschool their children. On food and product safety, liberals count on the government agency tasked with regulation to render an informed decision, while conservatives don't. On voting fraud, liberals cite the research of computer scientists; conservatives rely on personal experience. On environmental damage, liberals trust the advice of ecologists and biologists who conservatives consider biased based on their chosen career. And so on and so forth. Now, I grant that some of these quickly listed examples are not particularly persuasive, and one could argue the merits of any particular case, but I do think that overall the pattern is difficult to deny: conservatives are more likely than are liberals to distrust experts. Is that good or bad?
It's both, of course. Good because it's critical to avoid taking results on faith just because somebody with a PhD says so; good because it's important not to abandon common sense in the face of technical details; good because sometimes experts have an agenda that goes beyond their field of expertise; good because sometimes a little skepticism uncovers a big error or even a lie. Appeal to authority is a classic logic error that conservatives are less likely to commit. It's bad because it's just not possible to match a lifetime of study and observation with five minutes googling, and the can-do investigative attitude can lead to a paranoid unwillingness to accept even an overwhelming consensus. It's particularly bad when the refusal to accept the expert conclusion is rooted in a political stance (rather than being based on a deep understanding of the topic); this can lead to classic confirmation bias. Note that liberals can (and should) exercise caution in accepting the conclusions of any particular expert, but this would only cause them to reject one bit of evidence while retaining the larger case that is accumulated on years of expert observation and analysis. However, if a conservative begins by dismissing experts it is certainly possible to conduct some useful calculations and draw some basic conclusions but it is unlikely that the end result will have anywhere near the sophistication of that which was earlier rejected. Well, I think my liberal bias for valuing expertise is becoming apparent, so let's move on to the most interesting question: what drives this dichotomy?
Note that the roles played by liberals and conservatives above initially appear opposite to their traditional political stereotypes. We have the liberals accepting and the conservatives questioning authority. Of course, the authority in question is based on academic or scientific credentials, or on the experience of a decades-long career in the field; what makes this particular type of authority so easily subject to question by conservatives? Perhaps it's the academic origin -- liberals dominate academia, and conservatives distrust the conclusions of liberals. Or maybe it's not about authority or origin at all, maybe it's right in line with traditional political stereotypes: conservatives value self-reliance, even when it comes to evaluating a topic in which they are not expert. Finally, the explanation may be indicative of an entirely different correlation (h/t to KW at the Forvm for this suggestion): perhaps people grow more distrustful of expertise as they get older, maybe as a result of observing the experts change their minds on many issues with the changing decades. In this case, of course, the liberal/conservative divide would just be a consequence of people also tending to become more conservative as they age.
So, what do you think? Agree or disagree on the premise that conservatives distrust expertise? What about the pros/cons of such an approach? Finally, which hypothesis for this tendency appears most plausible? Are there areas (maybe economics) in which this distrust of expertise is inherent to liberals rather than conservatives? If so, what differentiates them from the trend?
(Repeat of caveat: this is a broad-brush picture and I've omitted qualifiers throughout for convenience. I certainly realize and accept that in any particular situation any particular conservative or liberal could act quite differently than described above.)
Comments :
Outstanding!
Brendan,
Excellent post !! As you know, I'm new to SwordsCrossed, having spent the last several months blogging at RedState, so I don't know if your diary here is representative of a higher quality on SwordsCrossed than that to which I'm accustomed, but it's just great to see such an intelligent diary that is thought-provoking and challenging without being merely rhetorical.
I haven't blogged at dKos or other liberal sites, so I don't have a point of comparison as far as blogging discourse, but I can certainly confirm, if -- again, IF -- my experience on RedState provides a representative view of some substantial segment of conservatives, that there is a very strong tendency to reject the consensus conclusions of experts when they conflict with conclusions that fit conservative ideology and/or conservative/Republican talking points.
The most striking example in my experience was on the subject of the relationship between the Bush tax cuts and revenues. I presented numerous quotes of prominent conservative economists, including Bush's own current and former top economists, all disagreeing with the extreme supply-side talking presumption that the Bush tax cuts have CAUSED (or at least substantially contribed to) the increases in revenues in recent years, and I also sought to explain why the conclusion of these economists is plausible (based on the algebra of the Laffer Curve at tax rates in the neighborhood of rates prior to the Bush cuts), and tried many, many times to explain to people that anecdotal observations of coincidence (particularly with very selectively chosen samples) is quite far from establishing causation, and that there are complexities involved that the guys with the Ph.D.s are better at sorting out. With a grand total of one exception out of around 25 - 30 persons reacting over several threadsI was met with charges of "lefty", "troll", and -- the least offensive, I guess -- "appealing to authority", sometimes with a checkmate-style tone referring to the supposedly fraudulent claims of most experts on climate change. On the latter, I pointed out (without getting into the climate change debate) that I understood that their rejection of the climate change expert consensus was based on suspicion of bias and/or an agenda, but that such could not be said about the conservative economists (including Bush's own) whom I had quoted. Almost invariably, nothing I could say on the subject would gain even consideration. To the contrary, they claimed I was either in denial (quite ironic), "appealing to authority", and/or that I was secretly a liberal seeking to undermine the conservative/Republican cause. To see some of the information I presented to them (quotes of economists, etc.), please see my blog at http://logicizer.townhall.com/g/f48d2bf3-1c51-4592-aa46-191f089d752f
and http://logicizer.townhall.com/g/c5ecb3cf-2712-4f5a-ad89-7ae03da99280 
(I don't know if the links will automatically go "live" here or if I need to use html. If the latter, I'll follow up with the links in another comment).
I was pleased (and a bit amused) to see that someone else has made this observation and was curious about its cause, because many times on RedState I felt like inquiring and speculating about it, but never did because I assumed it would be offensive and probably not productive. First, I should qualify my comments by repeating that I am not sure this tendency is more pronounced among conservatives or conservative bloggers than among those at the liberal end. Having said that, and presuming there is indeed this greater tendency among conservatives, here's my hypothesis: (1) This tendency exists mainly among religious SOCIAL conservatives rather than among secular, socially libertarian, economic/fiscal conservatives such as me, and (2) it stems from a faith orientation and from some of the conflicts between religious "truths" and science, perhaps beginning most notably in modern times with Scopes "Monkey Trial". This faith orientation and historical and ongoing conflict with experts (and knee-jerk rejection of expert consensus that conflicts with dearly-helf myths) carries over into economics and other areas. If the earth is under 10,000 years old and humans were created in their current form in the first week of the universe, then the experts are all wrong (well, except from some obscure contrarian "scientist" who has "proven" otherwise), and they are probably pursuing the same "liberal agenda" (or trying to secure their research funding or some other ulterior motive) when they make claims regarding climate change. Add to that if particular authority figures who are seen as "one of us" -- Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, etc. -- say something contrary to expert consensus (on climate change, tax cuts & revenues, etc.), and you've got a general truth-teller (albeit a non-expert on the particular issue) vs. a bunch of biased or disingenuous experts who are probably not good, God-fearing people like us.
I hope my hypothesis above is not offensive to anyone.
Of course, even among economic/fiscal conservatives who are not social conservatives, some reject the consensus expert view on the Bush tax cuts' net impact on revenues, but I assume that's just either run-of-the-mill cognitive dissonance (wanting to have their cake and eat it, too -- tax cuts AND higher revenues) or, in some cases, insincerity in pursuit of a policy objective (lower taxes).
As for liberals, I do see in the media and among friends, a tendency by some to reject expert consensus on some issues when that consensus conflicts with what they'd like to believe. For example, on international trade, some seem to reject or excessively discount what economists say about the benefits of trade and the harm of protectionism to most Americans.
Second try at the links in
Second try at the links in my above comment:
Economists on Bush Tax Cuts & Revenues
The Logic of the Laffer Curve
Thanks, and very good point
on the faith orientation. It makes a lot of sense that someone who sees a disconnect between science and faith in one area and reconciles it in favor of their religion might also distrust science in another area.
I hear you on RS. They can be a tough crowd, as I imagine dKos can be if you're more conservative than they'd like. I remember a conversation in their Redhot a while back where Adam C was trying to convince the rest of the editors that no, tax cuts don't automatically pay for themselves, but there are other reasons to support them. Your links are a great reference, nice work.
You would think that presenting experts who generally agree with conservatives but disagree on the issue in question would be convincing, but it's never worked for me either. Maybe because conservatives view it as cherry-picking and question the motivation of the liberal advancing that argument. I bet if Reagan stood up and said it himself in the middle of a larger speech the reaction would be different than when a liberal attempts to use a Reagan quote to support a point, to make up an example.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Thanks re: my blog (the
Thanks re: my blog (the links).
Re: your reference to Redhot conversation at RS, I don't know when the conversation to which you refer took place, but a week ago it happened (again?) after National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru spoke the truth about the consensus among economists on this point (and his agreement). Some RS contributors seemed dismayed. Notice the headline of the post that started the conversation! Who Lost Ponnuru?
It's like a shocked and deeply disappointed father crying out, "I HAVE NO SON!" Adam C and Dan McLaughlin tried to explain and convince the rest (the Kool-Aid drinkers) that what Ponnuru said was sensible. There weren't many, if any, signs that they were successful, with the possible exception of Pejman.
On protectionism
I agree that this is an area where liberals are more likely to discount the opinions of experts, although there are also some conservatives who support tariffs.
My defense of the liberal position would be that while free trade is likely to be mutually beneficial in the long term it could cost jobs in the short term, and there has to be some system in place to handle the transition. Probably encouraging retraining is better than putting off the inevitable with protectionist policies, though.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I agree with helping with
I agree with helping with transition for people dislocated by free trade. Of course, it's not always easy to distinguish who has lost his job due to foreign competition and I assume that programs to help can vary widely in efficiency, but in many cases we can have some idea, and in principle, I favor the idea of helping them adjust (unemployment benefits, training/education, etc.)
I favor a healthy dose of skepticism ---
I was just reading Pat Buchanan's latest column, which is right on target, and putting matters into perspective w/this global warming hysteria
"Like the panics of bygone eras, this one has the aspect of yet another re-enactment of the Big Con. The huckster arrives in town, tells all the rubes that disaster impends for them and their families, but says there may be one last chance they can be saved. But it will take a lot of money. And the folks should go about collecting it, right now.
This, it seems to me, is what the global-warming scare and scam are all about -- frightening Americans into transferring sovereignty, power and wealth to a global political elite that claims it alone understands the crisis and it alone can save us from impending disaster."
...
"Whether it's hunger, poverty or homelessness, in the end, the poor are always with us, but now we have something else always with us: scores of thousands of federal bureaucrats, and armies of academics to study the problem and assess the progress, with all their pay and benefits provided by our tax dollars. "
Yup!
Apocalypse Now?
Politics is a clash of interests masquerading as a clash of principles. – Anonymous
Well, that's certainly one possibility
Liberals could be salivating at the chance to impose big-government policies under the guise of preventing global warming.
But what if they're not? How much can it really hurt to begin sensibly transitioning from oil (which we have other reasons not to use) to alternative energy?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I'm all for alternative energy! Big Time!!
I really hate contributing to the Petro Thugs -- Putin, Chavez, Ahwhersmyjihads' etc -- coffers! We;re funding both sides of this terrorist war, which is insane, and BushCo's greatest failing, imo -- in a long list of failures!
but if this is really a 'crisis', then shoudn't everything be on the table, too? -- and that includes ANWR drilling, more offshore drilling, yes, even nuclear, though it's crazy expensive, cleaner? coal, etc., etc.
It's lalaland if we think solar & wind are gonna save us!
And a lot more should/could be done at the state level, of course, too -- but when you have liberals like Ted Kennedy blocking wind power, you see how difficult this really is!
Politics is a clash of interests masquerading as a clash of principles. – Anonymous
I tend to agree mostly
A lot of the "green energy" crowd just ignores the realities of their favorite energy sources. For instance, I was just arguing on another site with someone who said that nuclear "was not the answer" and then presented solar as the answer. But I found out that solar currently provides only 1/10,000th of our energy in the United States, and that production of solar panels is basically capped for the next 5-6 years until additional cpapcity to refine polysilicate comes online. So the truth is that we're already basically expanding solar capacity at the maximum possible, and the reality is that it will be decades before solar energy even makes a small dent in our total energy needs.
I'm also very much for agressive exploration and production of domestic energy reserves, including drilling in places where it is currently prohibited. I'm all for maxing out wind, solar, and even nuclear. We need it all, to get our unsustainable trade deficit down to manageable levels, and to create jobs domestically and pump up our tax base a bit.
I have not heard how Ted kennedy is blocking wind power. Could you provide a link?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Here's one
such link
. You'd think that finding himself on the same side of an issue as both Stevens and Young would make Ted stop and reconsider...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Ah, I see
So Kennedy is not blocking "wind power" per se, but he has some NIMBY issues with one particular wind project.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
But Pat Buchanan is more of an expert than NASA scientists.
Oksana makes your point.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
read the piece; he's not offering himself any expert!
just putting matters into historical context and perspective, starting w/the Malthusian theory, wherein we all should be dead of starvation!
"Parson Malthus predicted mass starvation 250 years ago, as the population was growing geometrically, doubling each generation, while agricultural production was going arithmetically, by 2 percent or so a year. But today, with perhaps 1 percent of our population in full-time food production, we are the best-fed and fattest 300 million people on Earth"
human ingenuity and creativity and profit motivation! is a beautiful thing --
If we can get some mass production going, and make alternative energies cheaper! hello? this 'crisis' would solve itself!
But so far I hear more babbling from a Gore about 'morality' and Congress is of course all politics -- thank you ethanol! when we need economic solutions, imo
Politics is a clash of interests masquerading as a clash of principles. – Anonymous
Frankly, WalMart's done more for this 'crisis' than an Al Gore!
but the lefties would sooner choke, than give evil Wally's any credit!
though, in fairness, Gore did give Wally's prop, but it was downplayed
Politics is a clash of interests masquerading as a clash of principles. – Anonymous
Yes, Brendan but here's the wrinkle
We cannot orchestrate that change through via government mandate.
I know it sounds unsatisfying to feel like "we are not in control" or calculated control of the endeavor but it is nonetheless absolutely true.
We cannot flesh how the transition is to look. It won't work. The only the government can do is allow or encourage the speeding up of that transition by not working pro-actively to slow down the urgency of that transition.
Changes must come on their own through private enterrpise that responds to market signals and conditions.
You want less greenhouse gases from oil emissions?
Let or make pollution more expensive through the most economical means possible. PERIOD.
You want to spur innovation in alternative fuels and energy?
Let petroleum become more expensive. PERIOD.
No grandiose idea will change these two simple realities.
Well, there are steps we could take if we wanted to
Rather than wait for oil to become increasingly expensive as it becomes increasingly scarce, we could start taxing it to encourage investment in alternative energy. For example.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Sure.
Now see who wants to do the right thing and let pollution and gas consumption become less attractive financially.
As ideas swirl in your head, you start to see the real problem with politics being the power broker to get things done in fast and evolving world.
lol
As bloggers, we don't have to concern ourselves with practicality, John!
But yeah, there is that.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Swirling ideas
I think the liberal idea of government assisting market forces has been "swirling" around in people's heads for a while. Most democrats support selling of pollution rights, or taxation of high polluters, etc., as a way of curbing greenhouse gasses.
On the left, they are flanked by socialists, who want outright regulation of industry, the simple legislation of public sentiment. On the right, they are flanked by conservatives, who appear to think the best approach is letting the market alone to work its magic. Neither seem realistic, which is why I once again find myself voting in the middle, the (D) ticket.
Socialist and capitalist extremisms do more for ideologues than they do for the planet.
Socialisme ou Barbarie!
I think you're misreading
who supports what.
tradebale emissions, by anything I've read, is not the mainstream dem position.
Who supports what
Is not cap & trade a significant part of the environmental proposals of all three of the top-tier Democratic Presidential candidates? As far as I know, only Huckabee and McCain have supported the concept on the Republican side.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I dunno, Brendan
I think this works equally for both sides.
Besides, I think you mischaracterize their positions in the cases you show. Correct me if I'm wrong but:
Nobody denies Global Warming except a few kooks. Their stance, I believe, is that liberals exaggerate the implications beyond what is provable. Workable policies is another issues.
On Iraq, it's more muddled. I see the military with conflicting views within itself on a variety of issues. Then there are the experts in intelligence and world affairs. Again, conflicting.
On teachers, it's that there less likely to trust the quality public schools and are willing to home school. Very different from what you're saying.
A lot of these seem overblown to be. and overly stereo-typical. But you kinda knew that.
That's not to say I don't agree with some of you points.
Nuance is for losers!
Accepted on all points =)
As far as the larger picture, I wonder whether your economic focus makes you more likely to encounter liberals who distrust expertise than is typical of their actual numbers. No way to know, of course, but it's a thought. Another theory: you've spent more time than have I at dKos and so you're more familiar with some of the more (shall we say) intuitive rather than informed positions of liberals.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Perhaps.
It's just that I've internalized and empathized with so many common positions through my youth that the conservative and liberal stereotypes really strike me as less common than they are portrayed to be. People usually run to worst extreme and twisted examples to reinforce their opinions.
Not only that but I've also seen policies and bills get interpreted in totally different ways.
But, I never denied that their is culpability on your general point. There is. I just think it's overblown.
And economics, yes, is one huge area where liberals ignore and twist expert opinions....even from Democratic economists.
Agreed that it's probably a bit unfair to put this in one
camp or the other.
We've mentioned Bryan Kaplan's book, "The Myth of the Rational Voter" which highlighted common economic mistakes that people make despite near concensus from economists. Note: these weren't "We believe in free trade, but we're concerned about transition issues." These were, "We underestimate the value of free trade."....and if this is a systematic error as Kaplan posits, we of course, come up with sub-optimal policies.
Cafe Hayek had a nice write-up on how it can work among even the best professionals in a given field.
there is a reason to distrust
conclusions coming out of Academia and sometimes the Scientific community when the implications have very distinct political overtones. Couple of points...
I automatically do not trust anything from Academia on stuff with political implications because the Academia is overwhelmingly leftist. Very leftist. To the Left of the Democratic party. From NY Times
:
and
and
Now that alone would not make me distrust everything coming out of "Academia" but there is often a very clear agenda that is obvious to any conservative.
Next, for scientists, it is a bit different in that it is a scientific evidence is often valid and the question becomes whether it was presented in an objective and non-biased way. Scientists in overall have similar political views to the rest of the Academia and also are often dependent on grant money for continuing research. That does affect the objectivity of their findings. All that said I am often comfortable with scientific findings as most of them (outside of the Global Warming issue) are very important to humanity and done with a very high level of reliability and honesty.
Unfortunately Conservatives has a problem with the SoCon irrationality permeating the entire damn party. It spreads the distrust of even fundamental science in favor of extremely backwards view of the world. It even affects a lot of non-SoCon cultural conservatives who find the safety in irrational and beliefs rather than the rational and evidence. SoCons big government "conservatives" are a huge problem and are imo the main cause source for the GOP troubles (outside of Iraq).
Finally I will address the issue of "Generals" speaking out on Iraq. Most of the military people speaking out on Iraq are retired and lean Democrat. That's the only side that can be loud on the issue. The other side are the people involved in the conflict and they cannot speak out because it would not be right. So we are constantly getting the one side. Now I know Iraq is FUBAR and has been that way for a long time, but the pretense of using the few loudmouth morons instigated by Democrats does not make a convincing argument to me.
Thanks Brendan.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You know the motivations of the generals how?
What a steaming load. This from the same guy who defended Blackwater guards because many of them were former Special Forces and Navy Seals, and, therefore, were above reproach.
Yet without even the slightest thread of evidence, you claim that the generals who have spoken out on Iraq are doing so ONLY because they are Democrats.
What a load of sh**.
Maybe they actually care about the military, Ender, and they see the bottomless pit of Iraq as being destructive to their troops and the institutions of the military.
Unless you have proof to back up your inane assertions (which you rarely do), then this is just more of your typical ignorant bleating.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
nothing in Iraq
is destroying the "institutions of the military." You're overexaggerating.
[Edit] lol, my comment has been sanitized.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Have any proof on the political tendenceies of the many
... generals who have criticized this war?
Didn't think so.
Your consistent in your ignorance.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
-4
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4hehe
you really want those ratings eh :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
CLS Bloviation Requires Too Much Bandwidth
So I am just putting my own ratings system in place! :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Ender admitted he was just making sh** up, downthread.
He even apologized.
Of course, he blamed his own laziness on Brendan, typical of phony promoters of "personal responsibility." Like you.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Alright, let's all relax
and get some coffee...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I'm relaxed.
I'm laughing.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Not me
I'm tired of being relaxed.
qui tacet consentire
What does this have to do with the fact that you bloviate?
My comment was much more general than this thread.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +436
Your IQ is in decline.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
-4
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4But would they include negatives?
Or will this remain GoRight's special way of indicating approval? And what if CLC wants in on the fun?
I foresee a thread entirely consisting of ever decreasing numbers, down to negative infinity...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Who cares?
GoRight's inanity just shows what a joke a ratings system would be.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
ROFL
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +40
I have set my scale. I just view it as my way of keeping things easy. Obviously these have no real effect other than to express my level of agreement.
Besides, you gotta admit it was kinda funny! I even put my scale in my sig!
This is like ratings but with commentary (optional, of course)!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I think your reponses containing only a number
... contribute much more to the board than your usual, long-winded, inane ramblings.
And I'm sure I'm not alone.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
0
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4-∞
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Don't be so hard on him! :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Decided to flex my negative rating muscles...
...kind of like exploding a nuke in the middle of the desert every so often, just to let everybody know you're not to be trifled with... it was nothing personal against Brendan :-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
-4
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +448
(That's your IQ.)
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
-4
(That's yours!)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4lol
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Rising costs of education ...
A tangent started by your mention of Academia.
I heard recently that the cost of a college education continues to rise faster than inflation. Given that payrolls are typically the largest portion of any enterprise's budget, this would suggest that the academics are soaking us for $$$$ every year, the greedy bast**ds. And this from a group which is most likely liberal and prone to railing against corporations raising prices (which in turn are used to cover pay increases for their workers, amongst other things).
Hmmm.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4college costs are skyrocketing because
the the role of the price mechanism is broken is this particular market....same as health care.
subsidies tend to do this to a market good.
The subsidies encourage demand without normal cost considerations.
This by itself is not a reason to say "no more student loans" but it is a reason to explore ways of encouraging the role of prices to affect a positive change.
Don't ever believe that higher prices in markets where the government heavily intervenes in the market process and the price mechanism is a coincidence.
College costs are skyrocketing due to a classic issue
... of capitalism: supply and demand.
This is the echo boom and a higher percentage of the population now attends college than during the original boom in the mid-to-late 1950s.
The demand for spots is higher than ever, particularly at top-level schools.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
No, CLC
you danced around my point. get passed the thin exterior and come inside.
Really?
Is the student loan program larger or smaller than it was 20 years ago? Is it more controlled by government or the private sector now than it was 20 years ago?
I hate to break this to you, John, but getting into a good school is much harder than it was 20 years ago. Schools like any of the Ivies, Middlebury, Washington University... most take just one in 10 applicants. It is much more competitive than it used to be. Demand has outstripped supply and that is what has led schools to be able to jack tuition rates.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
You, of course, fail to get his main point.
The demand that you speak of is created artificially through subsidies from the government in the form of grants and loans.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4No.
The demand is created by people having babies. In this case, it's the babies of the baby boomers. When the babies of the baby boomers become 17-year-olds, they want to go to college.
Northwestern University has an endowment of over $3 billion. And their tuition continues to soar. Because far more kids want to get into the school than they have places.
It's called supply and demand.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Augmented by artificial government subsidies.
Thus skewing the curve.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Nonsense.
How have government subsidies changed in the last 20 years?
The biggest drivers are:
1. A higher percentage of high school graduates wanting to attend college.
2. A bigger crop of high school graduates (the "echo boomers").
From USA Today
:
And guess what, it's not poor kids getting government subsidies who are pumping up the numbers. It is kids from families with money:
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Creative stats.
(1) The subsidies have gone up in the last 20 years even if there are no new programs. I know this because I know liberals. I won't waste my time looking up the stats for things like the Pell grant budgets year over year, that is left as an exercise for you.
(2) The number of college bound students has increased 21%, but has the proportion of those from the wealthy kept pace? I doubt it. The majority of those will be from lower income brackets who are now enabled by the subsidies.
(3) So only 1 in 17 of the poorest families makes it through college. What was that figure 20 years ago? 1 in 25? 1 in 50? Just because this figure is low doesn't mean that it hasn't improved.
Let me make it clear that I don't have a problem with the poor getting a helping hand in education. I think that's great. But that doesn't change the fact that the subsidies are driving up demand. That's just common sense, at least for anyone objective.
Subsidies represent an artifical lowering of the price for a commodity. Lowering the price artifically is generally accepted as being followed by a balancing rise in demand. That increased demand drives the price up to the point there the poor can't afford the education again. The net result will be higher prices overall and an increase in the ratio of poor to wealthy students (by virtue of the grants being needs based). This is just simple econ 101.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Pathetic.
You claim that subsidies have risen but you admit that you're too lazy to back it up with any proof whatsoever.
Okay. Reminds me of Ender's ignorant claim that retired generals who criticize Iraq are Democrats. He, too, didn't have any proof. Just idiotic bluster.
You and John are the ones claiming (as you do at the end of your post) that subsidies are driving up the cost of tuitions at rates above inflation.
Neither one of you has offered even a scintilla of evidence to support such a contention.
But don't let that stop you. Never does.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
0
Stop whining. You prove US (me actually) wrong.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Hilarious.
When you find proof to back up your claim that college tuitions have soared beyond inflation rates due to government subsidies, let me know.
I have offered numbers to back up my assertion that tuitions have gone up primarily because of the echo boom and a higher percentage of those echo boomers trying to get into colleges.
Soaring college tuition rates are examples of capitalism's basic building block: supply and demand.
As the demand outstrips supply, prices rise.
There are more kids applying for the same number of slots. And that's because there are more kids.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Here, whiner ...
Here, whiner ...
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Some data
I'm sure there are better sources with more useful numbers but that's a start for you guys anyway =)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Facts?
As GoRight made clear in his last post, he doesn't need facts.
He knows.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Here, whiner ...
Pell Grant funding increased by 10.3% Per Year from 2000 through 2005
(the latest numbers I could find easily).
Here are the per year inflation rates
:
Inflation Rate
more Historical Data from
InflationData.com
Most important note: 10.3% > (1.6% or 3.4%) By a LOT!
Just like I said, a waste of my time. I already knew.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Here is a chart from Bush's 2006 budget ...
Which isn't necessarily the actually passed budget, BTW, so the numbers could be different but I am wasting too much time on this bogus exercise anyway:
Note that the Pell Grant has been running a shortfall for many years. What does this mean? This means that they have been spending more than they have been allocated in the budgets from one year to the next. But how is this possible? Pell Grant budgets are established on a 2 year (as opposed to a 1 year) time window for distributing the funds. This allows the program to "borrow" money from the succeeding years thus creating a shortfall that accumulates from year to year and is absorbed into subsequent budgets. The bottom line gauge, however, is the amounts actually appropriated each year which is where the above graphs and the 10.3% number is coming from.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Recipients increased
Probably partially because of changing eligibility (just a guess) but plausibly also because more people were going to college.
But unless colleges are increasing the size of their classes I think the key figure to determine the impact on tuition is federal spending per student, no?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
No.
The thing that will most affect the impact on tuition is the number of students seeking the slots. Supply and demand. The program has obviously been increasing the number of available students faster than inflation (since the size of the pot has been increasing faster than inflation while the per student cost has been fixed).
Demand rising faster than inflation (based simply on the number of people in the program). Tuition rising faster than inflation. Any more questions?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It's not at all clear to me
that more people are deciding to go to college because they can get federal aid (particularly since said aid is an ever decreasing percentage of tuition) as opposed to for some other reason. Like, say, there are relatively more people of college age. Or more careers require a degree.
I agree that in theory subsidies will increase tuition but I'm not convinced that's the dominant factor increasing demand here.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Fair enough.
This issue is turning out to be a little bit like the AGW debate where the AGW alarmists was to say that man is the only (predominant?) cause of global warming. The contrarians on the other hand are taking a range of positions from no impact to some but not the dominant impact.
I have become somewhat the latter. To the extent that CO2 can affect the global temperature man's increasing it will have an affect. But that effect will only be part of the over-all picture within the context of an array of positive and negative contributing factors.
So increased people may be one factor, increased need for higher education in industry may be one factor, and the total level of subsidies provided may be yet another factor. So you guess is as good as mine as to which one is dominant, but I have clearly demonstrated that the total amount provided as subsidies is growing faster than inflation, have I not? That should at least get it on the short list.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4They're all related.....
Tuition goes up in response to the demand so we increase the size of the subsidy which increases the size of the demand which increases tuition and increases the subsidy, etc.
It's all an inter-related chain, but I wouldn't brush off the role of subsidies in creating demand at all in what amounts to an inflationary death spiral.
Ah, but, ATQB
but you would need to this to avoid explaining the complete picture.
Population growth rate at about 1.3% per year.
From our good friends at wikipedia
:
OK, so we have the population growing at 1.3% per year (less than inflation) and total subsidies growing at 10.3% per year (much faster than inflation). Which of these two is more likely to be the cause of tuition rising at a rate faster that inflation?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Non-sequitir.
Check the growth rate in the population 14-20 years old.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
You just like wasting my time.
From the graph in the article cited above:
Anything else?
EDIT:
Here it is as a time series for you:
Looks like the 1.04% is a little high.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I do, yes.
I send all of your comment strings to your boss who must be wondering just what you do all day in your cube.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I'll take that as an admission of defeat.
Strictly on this point, of course.
And THIS is why I said above that I didn't want to bother.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Take it any way you want.
I have to go.
Though you may have claimed you "didn't want to bother," you certainly did "bother."
Please don't call me looking for a job when you get sh**-canned for slacking.
Thanks.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
And why shouldn't I with you smack talking like you were?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4From Brendan's source:
Let's note that your source is from the Republican House budget committee.
Not only that, even if it did increase, on whose watch were such increases allowed?
What's that?
You mean Republicans oversaw an increase in Pell Grants? But haven't you been claiming that it was Democrats and liberals who were boosting money to these programs?
Gee.
Now, let's have a look at the history of Pell Grant funding
.
You will note in the above document, that Pell Grant funding has declined in real numbers, particularly for students. At the plan's inception in 1976, a student could get a Pell grant would cover 72% of the student's tuition at a public school and 35% at a private school. By 2002, those numbers had fallen to 41% and 16%, respectively.
A summary from this detailed report on Pell Grants (pdf):
And let's keep in mind that Pell Grants are but one piece of the pie.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
you didn't do anything to address
the simple phenomena of how subsidies have pushed college costs higher.
It's as simple as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.
I'm bored.
Can't you both be right?
Seems the most obvious scenario to me, as a non-expert.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
90-10
Increases in average college tuition rates have outstripped inflation in recent years because there are more kids trying to get in to the limited number of slots, particularly at elite schools.
I find it humorous that the biggest promoters of the "free market" here refuse to deal with this fundamental fact of capitalism.
As the links John, himself, pointed out to me, supply-and-demand is the biggest factor driving soaring tuitions.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I am not failing to "deal with this fact".
I clearly accounted for it within the context of increased levels of subsidies available to the potential students.
You are correct here ONLY in the sense that there are, in fact, more potential students. However, the program is enabling them to attend at a rate that exceeds inflation ... something that may or may not have been true without the subsidy. The point of the discussion, however, was what effect the subsidies would have on tuition rates which is undeniably that they would cause them to increase at a rate commensurate with the total aggregate level of spending produced (i.e. the total budgetary figures year over year).
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Brendan,
I'm addressing no other point than my own.
I'm not denying any truth that can be obtained from anything that CLC is posting or saying.
Let's stay focused here. I've made one simple point. The only "No" or any indication to the negative I've given is to simply state that my simple point has not been refuted.
Plain and simple. I'm not arguing. And have little else to add on that matter other than what I already have.
sheesh.
Right. Here's your opening statement:
And I simply pointed out that your stated reason is NOT the reason college costs are skyrocketing. And certainly not the primary reason, as one would take from your comment.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
No you haven't.
you really haven't.
Yes I have.
I really have.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
BTW, CLC
quote the whole thing:
It's such a simple point and you haven't changed it.
I'm really bored. Now. Barring anything fresh or new directly related to this dirt simple concept, I'm done here.
Irony abounds.
The funniest part of this is the "dirt simple" logic of the fundamental principle of capitalism: supply and demand.
Yet you want to point the finger at subsidies when the real driver behind soaring college costs is that there are more kids seeking the same number of slots, not because of subsidies, but because the baby boomers had a lot of babies 15-30 years ago.
Whatever.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
But increasingly enabled by subsidies.
In terms of numbers of students receiving subsidies.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The other relevant piece of data you need to support
... that point is what schools these students are attending.
As one of the articles points out (not sure which one now) the bulk of Pell Grant funding goes to local community colleges, the next largest chunk goes to state schools, and a relatively small amount goes to kids attending private colleges and universities.
The bulk of the increases in college rates has occurred at the top private schools --- the schools with the fewest Pell Grant students.
So the subsidies would, therefore, have a smaller impact on soaring tution rates.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Not at all.
The price increases are greatest at the schools which are in the highest demand, which are the Ivy League schools, right?
The bidding for a seat at those schools drives the price of those seats up to the point where even the subsidized students can't afford them. Since the wealthy people can still afford them and they are willing to pay their keds get in and the poorer students have to go elsewhere. It sucks, but that is the economics of the situation.
This should not be a surprise and it is completely consistent with the fact the the students who don't make it in take their subsidies and go elsewhere. Your observation is not a argument for how the subsidies have not driven the prices at these institutions up, it is actually an argument that supports the fact that these universities are seeing the highest rates of increase due to the increased demand.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Man, you really don't see it.
prices govern supply and demand and when price signals are diminished as a form of cost to the consumer, the price mechanism is not doing its proper role.
Supply and Demand alone, in effect, isnot the real core issue I'm addressing here.
The core issue is how S&D works and how it can be made to not function optimally.
Is that enough now?
See my post directly above your post.
If the bulk of the increase in college costs is heavily weighted to private schools as a number of the articles suggest -- and the majority of subsidized students is heavily weighted toward local community colleges and state universities -- then the bulk of the increase in college costs is coming not from subsidized students, but, rather, students with the resources to pay the increasing college costs.
There are more students trying to get into schools everywhere. There are more students with money seeking to get into the schools that are leading the way in soaring college costs. The spots in those schools are relatively fixed. A much lower percentage of students at these schools are subsidized by the government.
Generally speaking, subsidies do drive inflation. But in this instance, data and evidence suggest tat good ol' supply-and-demand is driving the significant leaps in college costs.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
One last try
read here
.
you'll probably just disregard it without really looking into it but there it is. There's actually a much larger research paper that goes with it.
Higher than the rate of inflation?
What has changed in the last 20 years? Why have college tuitions in the last few years suddenly outpaced inflation at such a phenomenal rate? Have subsidies shot up? Where?
Ignore the salient issue, if you'd like, but you have yet to make a case for why there has been a leap in tuition rates beyond inflation.
Supply and demand is the biggest reason why average tuition rates have soared. And most of that pressure is coming from families with money, not those receiving government assistance, as the facts have shown.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Well duh.
You are quoting the maximum payouts to recipients of the program. A totally irrelevant statistic to this discussion. What we care about is the total amount being expended by the program each year, i.e. the numbers I provided.
True the amount of college costs being covered by the Pell Grant for an individual student has declined over the years (in real dollars), but this is a liberal attempt at misdirection and one that hurts your case in this particular argument.
If the total amount being handed out each year is going up by a rate that far exceeds inflation yet the per student rate doesn't even keep up with inflation what does that mean? It means that there are a whole lot more students on the program than there were in the past.
Thus the program is enabling more and more students to pursue a higher education which takes us right to the main point being made here, the increased number of students on the program is the source of the increased demand at the Universities.
Since the program is needs based I can only assume that the majority of the money is going to under privileged individuals and an increasing number of them. (Not that this is a bad thing, of course.)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4That would only be true if Pell Grant students
... make up significantly larger percentages of students attending schools. As the links John provided point out, the market is driven at the top -- the elite schools where families with money want to send their children.
Reading through the reports and the links in this thread show that most Pell Grants are spent at local community colleges and other state schools, with very little spent at private schools where tuitions have soared and the mean is dragged upward.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Money is being infused into the "system" at a rate
exceeding inflation. That's the bottom line. As a result the subsidies are driving the prices up. That's the bottom line.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Is that primary driver?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Interesting question.
I wouldn't call it the primary driver. I would call it the primary enabler, in the sense that it is helping to convert potential students into actual students taking up seats. And it is apparently doing so at a rate that exceeds inflation. Without the increase in potential students, however, the whole discussion would be moot. So in that sense I guess we are both right.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yes, CLC
Yes. And it's not a claim. It is true. No point in resisting it. It's so plain and simple. Why don't you google some key words like tuition, inflation, student loans, costs or whatever and read a little about it.
Notice way above that I did not say that a good solution was to cut off subsidies. I simply said that solutions should be sought in utilizing the role of the price mechanism to curb these increases....somehow. I'm not an economist so I don't know what that solution might look exactly but it is the direction it would need to go in.
Here, CLC
I did it for you:
Google Search:
tuition costs student loans inflation subsidies
RESULTS
.
Wasn't my idea. I didn't make it up. It's simple cause and effect.
Now get beyond it and think of solutions within that reality.
John, did you bother reading many of those links?
Doesn't prove your point, actually.
If anything, a majority of the links back up my point, not your point.
Such as this one from that bastion of liberalism, Investor's Business Daily:
Tuition inflation spurs calls for congressional action
:
Thanks for proving my point.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Oh god
Your point? Your point?
I think this all started when I made a simply point as an aside that roughly paraphrases the quote above that came from one of the first results. IOW, the price mechanism is broken. I think I said that in the original post.
What you bolded, really doesn't have anything to do with what I'm talking about and never did. Along the way, you've decided to make this subtle and more precise point about "elite private institutions" and slip it in in place of a true rebuttal to my original point and imply that I'm even debating that point at all or am even interested in it. Doesn't work.
enough, please.
Thanks for doing the legwork, John.
Here's another example from your Google list:
Rising costs make climb to higher education steeper
Parents, students wonder why tuition, fees increase so rapidly
But, hey, whaddo I know?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I don't know what you know.
But none of this changes what I said. I really doesn't. This isn't horse shoes or hand grenades.
By disagreeing with me, you are in effect saying that government subsidies and the way they affect the role of prices and demand have not been responsible for the rapid increase in tuition.
Simply not true.
I went to one of those schools
And did it entirely with government-subsidized loans and work study. And that was years ago.
Government subsidies have been around for a very long time. They don't explain the current price increases.
qui tacet consentire
If anything, much of this funding has moved to the private
... sector.
I would like to see John or GoRight back up their assertion that government subsidies have led to tuition rates outstripping inflation.
That implies that subsidies have increased over the period where tuition rates have risen substantially. I don't think that's the case. On the state level, most higher education funding has declined.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
True
And I have no doubt that the budgets for those programs has increased steadily year over year. Much like the recent debate of the SCHIP program which is already covering children of families which are solidly middle income but the Dems want to push it even higher.
And given the faux accounting of the Dems in Washington the programs are guarranteed, GUARRANTEED, to keep pace with inflation at a minimum.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You have no doubt?
Prove it.
Don' forget that your team was in charge of Washington for much of the past decade.
Your rhetoric is contrary to the facts.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Take, for example, General William Odom.
Odom is a fellow at the Hudson Institute
, not exactly a bastion of liberalism.
He has been an outspoken critic of the war citing the destruction of our military capabilities as one reason for us to get out.
Iraq through the prism of Vietnam
What’s wrong with cutting and running?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I generalized about the generals
and I apologize. I was just following Brendan's example.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Heh, always blaming the liberal ;-)
It is a tough topic to discuss without making broad claims.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
So much for "personal responsibility."
"It's Brendan's fault!"
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I was just following orders! n/t
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Well, I appreciate conservatives engaging in this diary
despite the sweeping generalizations I make.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
An interesting topic, and one that deserves a thoughtful
response. I will try to provide one at a later time. For now, here are my initial (i.e. subject to revision) high level reactions:
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4A few questions
2. If you seek out "those views which run counter to the prevailing logic of the day so as to keep both sides in the equation/discussion" and then form your opinion, isn't your opinion improperly weighting the expert consensus?
3. How come more liberals don't adopt a Devil's advocate approach? And no, that's not a setup for a slam at liberals ;-)
4. Personally I rarely return to the same sources when I'm looking for a quick bit of information, so I don't build up a trust/distrust relationship with a random expert. If you're referring to non-experts who summarize primary research, I agree but don't think it directly applies anymore to the questions in my piece.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Just to suggest a paradigm
Just to suggest a paradigm here (and to use a fancy word like "paradigm"), I view the credibility of an expert, or of a consensus view of experts, as a function of the following:
- Expertise: Any relevant theoretical grounding, access and use of key data related to the question at hand, sophisticated analytical tools & methodologies, etc.
- Objectivity: Absence of any (or at least of substantial) bias.
- Sincerity: Absense of agenda (individual or collective) that could/would cause the expert(s) to voice a conclusion he/she/they do not sincerely believe.
I've heard conservatives challenge expert consensus positions on the grounds of lack of sincerity (Researchers wanting to be politically correct so they continue to get funding; liberals seeking policy changes for reasons unrelated to climate change). I've heard liberals challenge the expert (economist) consensus view on free trade on the grounds that economists advocating free trade are deliberately overstating benefits and understating costs because they are in cahoots with business interests who benefit from free trade.
Of course, some challenge the premise that an expert consensus actually exists to the extent, and of the nature, that is being claimed. Sometimes this challenge is valid. Other time, unfortunately, a few contrarian experts (who may or may not be as qualified as those with the consensus view, and whose objectivity may be more in question) are held out as a refutation of the claim that the consensus exists. There are, for example, a few economists who claim that the Bush tax cuts have caused the increases in revenues of the last couple of years (Stephen Moore, Brian Wesbury, probably Art Laffer, Larry Kudlow, and some others), but aside from Laffer, none that I've seen has a Ph.D. and others generally lack any graduate degree in economics or even and undergraduate degree, and they often have either some overt political agenda (e.g., Stephen Moore as prior head of the Club for Growth) or seem to have a vested interest in their position (e.g., Larry Kudlow playing to his audience as a TV and radio show host). To take a more extreme example, 9/11 conspiracy theorists like to point to some physicist ( I think it's this guy
) who supports the theory that the WTC buildings were brought down by a controlled demolition. And, while I generally favor the idea of journalists providing both/multiple sides of an issue, sometimes this "balance" creates the false impression of greater disagreement among experts than is actually the case.
You've hit on a key point here with
your second and third conditions. Unfortunately, while the first condition is relatively objective (papers published, citations, awards, etc) the second and third are more difficult to evaluate and so people are able to see bias in those expert opinions that contradict their political beliefs.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Credentialism
I hate credentialism. In my heaven, one lives on his brains. Credentialism is a form of institutionalized logical fallacy (argumentum ad hominem) which generally leads to medipocrity. It sets a ground, and excuses incompetence and stifles creativity. Thee is a reason that there is no credentialism in baseball or music, say.
When Kansas City got an expansion franchise years ago, they set up a "Baseball University" to train new draftees and supply players for their minor league teams. One just can't imagine, a couple of years later, the manager deciding his roster after spring training like this: "Yes, I know that Diddlehopper hit .423 this spring, with the most home runs and RBIs on the team, stole more bases, but he's not credentialed, he never attended the Baseball University. I'm going to take Branson. I know he hit .187 with no home runs or RBIs, and that he's slower than molasses, but he graduated from Baseball University. That's good enough for me!"
A couple of decades ago, the man who had run the computers for a state i lived in was sacked. He had run the computers since there were computers to run, and there had never been a complaint. But, you see, he didn't have a college degree, let alone a Ph.D. He had learned from the ground up, solving problems as they arose. But the state decided they should have a Ph.D. in charge, so they hired one. He almost immediately introduced new payroll software, which promptly broke the system. Payroll then had to be done by hand, "temporarily," but the fix didn't come. Eventually, he hired the old head of computer systems as a consultant to write new (that is, largely old) payroll software for use until the new software could be made to work. When I left the state over a decade after that, the new software had never been made to work.
As B points out, credentialism, here described as bowing and scraping to expertise, can lead to a huge argumentum ad verecundiam where every side parades an authority cherry picked to their own beliefs. We have become so enfeebled, so lazy that we defer our responsibility to think for ourselves to authorities at any excuse. In fact, professional experts can now make a good living by leaving their academic career behind to merely testify.
Speaking as a non-expert
I will here maintain that .999--> )(where --> means "repeated to infinity) is the same as and is in fact another way to write the integer '1.' I can, if there be doubt of this obvious truth, provide a couple of proofs. Let's say that you don't believe me. Would you change your mind if I told you that i have a Ph.D. in mathematics?
Fact is, I don't have a Ph.D. in mathematics. If you believed me before, maybe because your old math teacher told you this proposition was true, when finding that I made this claim without a math degree, do you now begin to doubt it?
I will say that I am an expert in the proofs for this proposition; therefore, I see no need to actually offer one. I'll let John do that.
Laffer Curves
I don't have a degree in economics, either. But I think the Laffer notion is so abused that it merits explanation. This is a simple version.
The notion begins with the simple observation that if the taxation rate is 0%, the tax resulting will be $0. Similarly, although maybe less obviously, if the tax rate is 100%, then the tax resulting will again be $0. Now, assuming (in this simple mode) that the function of tax rate to tax collected is reasonably well behaved, we can say that the rate at which the maximum amount of taxes will be collected will lie somewhere between 0% and 100%.
What the Laffer curve tells us is that, again assuming for our simple model a reasonably well-behaved function, that if our present rate is not the maximum rate, we can increase tax revenues by adjusting the tax rate toward the maximum rate. That is, if the present rate is higher than the maximum rate, we can raise revenues by lowering it, so long as we don't lower it too far, and, likewise, if the present rate is lower than the maximum rate, then we can raise revenues by raising the tax rate, so long as we don't raise it too far.
So far, this is simply a mathematical truism about the properties of functions. But if we believe that the curves adequately map reality, then the truth pertains to that reality. What we have not done is to say how we know what the rate for maximum revenue is. We have not even shown or even hinted that it is stable, that it doesn't change with time and circumstance.
So application of Laffer curves may be easy enough at the extremes, say 90% or 1%, but in the real world of 10%-80%, say, it's application may have more to do with the expert's political ideology. A liberal, who never met a tax he didn't like, and who probably kind of likes the idea of a 100% tax rate and has lingering doubts about the assertion above about no revenues from such a rate, will probably always p[ooh-pooh the notion that lowering tax rates could yield more actual revenues, while the anti-tax conservative will assume in all cases that the present rate is higher than the rate of maximum revenues, and always call for a tax cut, blindly claiming that it will raise revenues, and maybe wrongly citing the Laffer curves as proof. Both will be ready to save their ideology with excuses if things don't turn out as they predict.
So, did the Bush tax cuts result in an increase in revenues? The answer is found not by asking one's favourite Ph.D., but by examining the numbers. Unfortunately, dear reader, only you can decide the answer, and to do so, you must learn to read the numbers. The one thing that it did, surprisingly or not, is to shift more taxes to the richest people. How is this possible? The rich have gotten richer, so that a lower tax rate yields more taxes. Whether you think this is fair or not is likely to depend on whether you think it is fair and progressive for the rich to pay more taxes, or whether you only count as fair a tax system where the rich pay hugely more of their income in taxes. If you believe the former, you are glad that the rich are paying more of the taxes, and more benefits are going to the bottom half of the population. But if you believe in the politics of envy, then you will not be satisfied because you see the tax system as a way to punish the rich for the crime of being rich, and will favour confiscatory rates, without regard to tax revenues.
Finis
(Applause.)
So, we as responsible human beings can skip the matters of objectivity, expertise, and sincerity, things which can be only guessed at anyway, by going directly to the data, by examining the theory. We Americans have throughout most of our history had a healthy skepsos about experts. We have loved learning, and were happy to build ivory towers for thinkers to toil in. But we Americans are more likely to use university extension services to get practical advice, which we then test for ourselves. There is a reason that the ultimate genius of America, Charles Sanders Peirce, is almost unknown, but a practical man like Thomas Alva Edison is celebrated. (Personally, I love Peirce, a sort of philosophical Charles Ives.)
My advice: grab yourself by your genitals and do your own work. Don't take the easy way out by reading the "experts" and cherry picking one that agrees with your own dogma. Fight any wish to believe.
Go to the IPCC work, but skip the summary for policy makers to go directly to the scientific work. You can read it.
Ultimately, an "expert" only has credibility if you choose to give it to him. And doing so raises questions of your own objectivity, expertise, and sincerity.
I need to have some idea of
I need to have some idea of the likelihood of rain tomorrow, and all the professional weather forecasters (the experts) say there is a less than 5% chance of rain, but thanks to your comment, I realize now that I really have no idea what the probability of rain is tomorrow, and will not until I gather enough raw meteorological data, learn the science myself and conduct my own analysis. Thanks for the tip. I'm sure I'll come up with a more reliable and precise forecast. I just hope I have time to do all that tonight.
This is the usual response
this idea gets, one that could be called "the flight from responsibility."
You have set up the usual straw man here. As you can see, I did not counsel ignoring meteorologists or physicians entirely to do all your own work. I didn't counsel, for instance, ignoring clomate scientists to do your own experiments. I know you feel oh so smart for your silly response, but it is ultimately a misrepresentation of what i said.
Let me make it clear. Since the 11PM weather report seems to have a certain reliability, and the consequences of its beong wrong are not likely to be catastrophic toyou, you are free to trust the report on the news. In fact, I really doubt if your reliance on the report has anything to do with the expertise of the reporter. In this case, you are certainly justified with accepting the National Weather service read out.
You will notice that those folks at Cape Canaveral did not do that. They used their own forecasters who made continual updates.
Also note that I am not putting down learning. I am just saying that you are the author of your own minde.
I know, that's too libertarian for you, and you believe that your mind should be the collective mind, and that truth is whatever we agree on, objectively true or not, as Habermas might have it. I just don't believe that.
Now, stop being silly,. Use your mind.
Plenty of strawmen to go around =)
I bet you guys would agree on most aspects of this, actually -- not sure that's coming through in these posts though.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
you believe that your mind
Thanks for showing me what a REAL straw man is.
As for your original point, help me understand it. If we have a consensus among experts on a particular matter -- particularly on a matter in which having a deep grounding in the relevant theory and in sophisticated analysis increases the likelihood of valid conclusions considerably -- and we do not have reason to doubt their expertise, objectivity or sincerity, should we or should we not conclude that this consensus view is much more likely to be valid than the opposite view expressed mainly by laypeople? Note that I'm not suggesting accepting this consensus view as a certainty or as necessarily perfect, just applying common sense to the relative probability that they correct, or closer to correct, versus that opposite, contrarian view held by the laypeople.
It seems to me that if your answer to my quetion above is "no", then my sarcastic reply above was no straw man, but an appropriate response to your actual point. And if your answer is "yes", then what exactly IS your point?
See, you get it
Thanks for showing me what a REAL straw man is.
You are welcome. In simply intended to return the favour for demonstration purposes. Not nice, is it?
It should be obvious that I am referring to things in dispute. "There is a thing in actual existence called an electron" is not something i am talking about. That would be a straw man.
As for the weather, i should let you know that I trust my arthritic knee to tell me whetherit will rain tomorrow. It is much more accurate than the local news. I suspect that this is because it is stricktly local to me, and tracks changes in atmospheric conditions in real time. the weather report, on the other hand, comes from 60 miles away, and is always old.
I suppose that you would be happy to support the flat earth theory ands the earth centric system of the heavens when it was scientific consensus. Me? If you held a gun to my head at that time, I would do as you say, and make a guess based on what the experts' consensus was. I would have been wrong. If it was a matter of importance for me, I would do a little research into the matter before i wasted people's tiome by saying, "hey, you, you gotta believe this because the scientists I trust believe this. They got Ph.D.s."
When I was a child, my mother would treat burns, first aid wise, by slathering butter or margarine on them. This was the prevailing consensus, on thge theory that burns lose water, and the fat in butter would form a barrier to water loss. turns out, fatty acids and other components of butter and margarine also cause tissue damage. My mother and her doctor and the consensus were wrong. They were, shall we say, more likely to be right for you, and wrong.
Now, get your mind around the problem here: I am talking about things in doubt. If you really bel9ieve what you say, tell me which "experts" you are going to entrust your vote to in the next presidential election. Do they have Ph.D.s?
I always cringe when I hear the term 'consensus' used with the term 'science.' Science advances because there is no real consensus, and people are always questioning. Science is done with error bars and confidence levels. One cannot reach truth in science by taking some vote., even if it is weighted by the credentials of those who get a vote.
One of the most famous quotes, I'll paraphrase, of how not to use science comes from Al
gore, who said: "Some scientists say that this will change X amount, other scientists say it will change by Y (Y>X) amount, but the scientists I trust say that it will change by Z (Z>Y) amount."
First, this makes it obvious that Gore is writing, presenting a polemic, not a searech for the truth, and is cherry picking his data. More importantly, science is not something that we judge on the basis of our trust of those who present it. We look at the actual science and judge.
Now, if you don't have the time to do that in all cases, as none of us, even scientists, do, then one can use your proposal. I try to limit it to less important things. Still, the mistakes of doing so can have long lasting effects. Most people I meet believe that a chill makes one more likelyu to get a cold or some other infection. This is because a trusted scientist, Pasteur, made this claim after misreading the results of one of his experiments. Turns out that it is not true. Efven trusted scientists can make mistakes, and in hindsight, even a high school student can explain how Pasteur made the mistake. Should we still believe it because Pasteur is trusted and has credentials?
So here is my question to you: if you hzve some important matter to decide, say something life and death, and you have the time to =check it out yourself, do you do that or do you simply go with some expert whose position on the matter seems to fit with your ide0ology?
ok, I'm going to try to see
ok, I'm going to try to see where we agree and where we don't. Here's what I think, and you tell me whether you agree (in part or whole, or perhaps conditionally) or not.
1) Experts, even expert consensus can be wrong.
2) When there is an expert consensus on some matter, and there is no reason to suspect the expertise, objectivity or sincerity of the experts, we can generally assume that the expert consensus is substantially more likely to be correct (or closer to it) than an opposite conclusion reached mainly by laypeople, particularly when sorting out the matter involves (or should involve) sophisticated analysis, complex theory, ready access to appropriate data and analytical tools, etc. rather than crude anecdotal observations or "analysis" by laypeople who lack expertise in all of the above.
3) The greater the consequences of accepting the wrong conclusion, the more important it is to both seek more expert opinions (e.g., getting a second or third opinion on a medical diagnosis) and to do research on one's own (because there is always some chance that one will uncover some information or gain some insight that the experts have missed, and even if the probability is low, the magnitude of benefit is high, yielding a substantial "expected value").
4) If there is a strong, broad consensus among economists that extending the Bush tax cuts will have a very substantial net negative impact on revenues, it would be unwise to base fiscal policy on the opposite assumption, based mainly on the conclusions of some laypeople that, because tax revenues have gone up since all the tax cuts were in place (and have done so in some other cases in our history), there must be a cause and effect relationship.
So, whaddaya say? Agree, disagree, something else?
Not quote
I still have a problem with this one:
It's not that i disagree with this in the abstract, it's that i can't imagine a circumstance where i would follow this path. What i would say is that if I were looking for sophisticated analysis, I would probably go to those who are considered experts before I stopped by the local saloon to gather opinions there. But I am NOT interested in their results. I am interested only in their evidence and arguments. I simply can't imagine saying, "Well, I've got five expert economists who say we should do this, and three who say we should do the opposite, so you know what we will do" without actually looking at all the evidence and arguments.
So, let's look at 4:
Wow. this is way over drawn. I will agree that IF the ENTIRETY of what you ave to go on to make a decision is the conclusions of economists (and, I suppose, laypeople), then you would have to go with the consensus. But i would hope that this would never happen. if government were run this way, we could elect a compiler to run the country.
But, back to my point. What if one of the experts in economics doesn't actually have credentials in economics (let's say that he got his Doctorate in Mathematics.) Should his opinion and arguments be discounted because he lacks a degree in economics? You use the word "layperson." I like the word as long as it is used to describe actual competence, not credentials. Is everyone without a degree in economics a layperson?
Further, as you know, cause and effect relationships are problematic in the pseudo-sciences. You have drawn it in one direction, but it could be drawn in the other. I suppose that if the Bush tax cuts are extended, and revenues rise, there are those who will claim a cause and effect relationship. Others will say it is a coincidence, and provide explanations. If, on the other hand, taxes are raised and revenues increase, there will also be those, with the same sort of argument, who will claim a cause and effect relationship, and those who are doubters, who will provide arguments that it is a coincidence.
We can note that when tax cuts are said to have led to revenue increase in the past, they usually had to do with a sharp decrease in tax rates from confiscatory levels or close, certainly not, for most people, a description of taxes at the beginning of the Bush administration.
And, it is truly matter of the Laffer curve. Now, oh B, can you tell me where the rate that will lead to maximum revenues is, and, therefore, which direction we need to move to increase revenues, or do you have your tax policy in mind, and go out to find experts who seem to support your policy, all without trying to answer the more basic question of where the best rate lies?
I think our dialogue on this
I think our dialogue on this topic is at the point of rapidly diminishing returns (not that we've made all that much progress to this point). Let me just say this, despite being somewhat repititious:
We often have situations in which there is expert consensus and little plausible doubt regarding objectivity or sincerity, and often the matter on which there is this consensus is one in which relevant expertise makes a conclusion much more likely to be valid than an opposite conslusion drawn without relevant expertise (however you want to reasonably define "relevant"). In such situations it is often neither practical nor likely to be useful to collect tons of raw data and to learn all one needs to learn to conduct one's own analysis and/or to critically evaluate the details of the analyses of the experts. My weather forecast is an example, and apparently you agree with my argument in that example, although I can't be sure, because you then return to your emphasis on evaluating the analyses one's self rather than on accepting the expert consensus conclusion. If the key distinction you were making is between when an expert consensus exists and when it doesn't, obviously that is an entirely different matter, and one must make a conscious effort to be objective in seeking out and considering various expert opinions, rather than being clouded by one's own bias, something people often fail to do -- yes, people often disproportionately seek out the views of experts that are likely to confirm what the former want to believe, and give disproportionate credence to those views, but that misuse of expert opinion does not mean that the value of expert opinion is inherently diminished in the way you seem to be suggesting. (By the way, I'm a management consultant, and a joke in my profession is that managers often use consultants much as a drunk uses a lamppost -- more for support than illumination.)
As for the consensus among economists on the net revenue impact of the Bush tax cuts, as well as my own "sanity check" on the general underlying assumptions, please see the two diary posts on my blog here
I think Brendan
is right, and that we actually agree, mostly.
You seem to emphasize conditions with little dissent, while am talking about conditions where dissent is rampant.
So, with regard to Global Climate Change, I have to wonder about the sanity of those who think that the earth hasn't warmed (the data say otherwise), but have little but contempt for those who can cite experts but don't know the science with regard to the more contentious matters, such as whaty it means, why it occurred, what if anything should we do about it (as opposed to what we should do about any sequelae as they happen).
You mention that people do misuse expert opinions, and I am here to tell you that it is my experience that on political blogs, boards, chat rooms, private conversations, public debates, etc., it is the RULE that expert opinions are misused.
We may differ on just where we are comfortable accepting the "consensus" rather than doing our own search. For me, it is never, although practical considerations prevent me from doing actual research much of the time. for instance, I know nothing of anything mechanical, so I have to rely on a mechanic or a mechanically inclined layperson who works on cars to give me advice on how to make the old clunker stop making that noise. I'm comfortable, oin the oither hand, reading science, so there, I always skip expert opinions to go directly to the science if I can.
The other things is that I have absolutely no need for any science (or economic "research") to go one way rather than another. About most things, I am comfortable saying that i don't know. I think that the need for certainty is ...well, let's just say that it is a sad thing. As soon as someone comes across as certain about things like the Bush tax cut, I will likely dismiss him. he's doing politics, not economics.
I remember what Truman said about economists:
"Get me an economist with one arm." Asked why, he said, "Because every time I ask an economist a question, they say, 'on the one hand...., but on the other hand...."
And that is the way I want answers couched, as they are in science. Certainty brings stupidity.
btw, checked briefly
the blog. You make an argument that I find less than convincing. I've heard it before, i want to say in advance that it is true. In fact, it is always true. In fact, it is tautological!
It goes something like this (you tell me where I misrepresent it):
To me, there is only one interesting question:
Did the tax revenues go up after the tax cuts, and why?
I'm not a great believer that economists can give definitive answers to these questions, and I must admit that the subsequent political arguments where people use economic terms to support the policies they would p[ropose no matter what the economists say cause me to fall asleep, if my eyes don't roll up in my head first.
To me, the honest person supporting a roll back of the Bush tax cut simply says, "I think the rich should be taxed more, and the results don't matter." After all, they are mostly the same political people who called the cut a "tax cut for the rich." And that nails their politics. Once the politics are nailed, we can surmise that their economics is simply a lamppost, if you will, used to support their politics.
I should be honest enough to report my own bias here. I really don't think that presidents have much to do with the economy, take too much credit and receive too much blame. I think that the summation of individual decisions in the real world have more to do with it. The "Clinton recession" had much less to do with Clinton than it did with the irrational exuberance of most of us individuals in the economy.
You've fundamentally
Discard or heavily discount the consensus opinion of economists on this question if you wish. But don't pretend it's wise or responsible. We have to make assumptions to set fiscal policy, and if we have to choose -- and for the most part, we do -- between assuming that the consensus opinion among economists on this question is more likely correct (or closer to it) than the opposite conclusion offered mainly by non-economists, it would be foolish not to make that assumption, and doubly foolish to pat ourselves on the back for it.
Going back to your original comment to me on this thread:
I think that was a bit of premature ejubilation. (No offense. I just thought of that line and thought it was a bit clever so I wanted to use it.)
But seriously, I think you are making a correct observation that people often misuse expert opinion -- to support the view they want to hold rather than to seek the conclusion most likely to be valid -- and are just throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
You see, B
I said that I may mischaracterize your argument, and asked you to clarify.
And I am saorry, but i simply disagree that we should decide things, either in government or among ourselves, by noting what experts conclude and then adding them up like some vote-tallying machine, and accepting the result. I believe that we can think for ourselves. I realize that this makes me a heretic to some.
I don't think that the climate has warmed because the experts say so, I believe it because i've seen the data. How is that throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Ultimately, I find the question a little boring. The real problem is bqalancing the budget, a budget that includes the $75 trillion in entitlement encumbrances. Philosophically, I think taxes are too high, against the notion of government that out fonding fathers had. But the answer is to cut spending, thus the need for taxes.
When the income tax was amended to the constitution, its opponents predicted that it would soon go far beyond the 3% cap, and would ultimately fund a huge government which would reach into every aspect of our lives, and centrlize power in Washington.
Likewise, de Toqueville, who admired American democracy, predicted that as soon as the common people learned that they could vote themselves benefits, it would be over.
Fortunately, we retain some of our pioneer spirit, and we have found a way to persevere. But those entitlements along with the refusal of ALL politicians to actually even look at the problem is going to take us under.
Now, one last thing: no where, nowhere, and no where did I suggest that we "discard" expert opinion. What I said is that opinions mean little without the evidence and argument which backs them. Sorry, kissing the asses of experts is just not my way. I want them to show me every time why what they are saying now is worthwhile.
Where is that wrong?
There's nothing "wrong" with
There's nothing "wrong" with asking experts to explain how they reached their conclusions. The problem occurs when laypeople, who lack the expertise needed to critically evaluate expert analysis, heavily discount (or discard completely) even the consensus view among experts whose expertise, objectivity and sincerity they do not doubt, and instead substitute their own anecdotal observations or crude "analysis" (for lack of a better word), and often use that as cover for what is really simply denial, an attempt to maintain some belief they feel better holding. A layperson may believe he has "seen the data" himself, but often lacks the expertise to know if he's looking at the right data, enough data, analyzing it correctly, etc. Simply put, some science is just not stuff laypeople can understand well at the most detailed analytical level. That's why experts are experts, particularly in scientific and other analytical fields. That's also why there are peer-reviewed scientific journals, so the folks who ARE capable of appropriately critiquing expert analysis do so and thereby distinguish analyses that meet professional standards. I think you either fail to appreciate that sufficiently, or you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater because some people misuse (or misrepresent) expert opinion.
I think we've pretty much exhausted what we have to say to each other on this topic, but feel free to add a bit more if you wish.
I would say
that if a person cannot look at data and understand what it says, he ought not form an opinion. That would be preferable to blindly following an expert. I also assume that everyone here has what it takes to look at a scientific article and understand what it says. They may have to take the statistics on faith, and may only understand the mathematics in a qualitative way. Most journals also have news services where the actual science is encapsulated in easy to understand form, less than a report, but better than the newspaper equivalent. There is no need to simply blindly adopt whatever opinion seems the most popular.
You seem to think that i am for ignoring data and argument presented by experts for simple, no evidence, no argument opinions of "laypeople." Not nice, B. I have nowhere advocated accepting uninformed opinion. In fact, I have advocated informing one's own opinion.
Oh, and implying that I --
Oh, and implying that I -- or economists -- need to know precisely what the revenue-maximizing tax rates(s) are in order to determine that a given tax cut is highly likely to have a negative impact on revenues is like saying that I cannot say that Yao Ming is taller than Spud Webb because I don't know the exact height of either.
I didn't imply
what you say, you inferred that.
Let me take it slowly: if you are using a Laffer curve analysis, then you have to at least make a guess about which way it is to use the curve to say in which direction you should move the rate to raise revenues.
In other words, if someone tells me that the Laffer curve says that we should lower taxes, I will (and have done so) ask him to tell me what he thinks the rate of maximum return is (approximately is fine) and why he thinks that. Much of the time, the person has no idea what i am talking about, and this tells me that he is parroting some doctrine, not actually thinking about things.
On the other hand, if you have reason to believe that raising or lowering the present rate will end up in higher revenues, you are ipso facto saying in which direction you think the rate for maximum revenue is. And I will ask why you think that.
It's possible to use spreads, you know. what do you think the rate of maximum revenue is, give or take 3%, say?
It's generally (given
It's generally (given current tax rates on labor and investment income) not even necessary to know "approximately" what the revenue-maximizing tax rates(s) are to know on what side of the Laffer Curve we currently reside, as long as it's fairly clear that we are nowhere near that inflexion point. Whether it's 60% or 80%, if we're at, say 33%, a conclusion can be drawn regarding the likely net revenue impact of a tax cut or tax increase.
I base my view primarily on the fact that there is a strong broad consensus among economists that we are nowhere near that inflextion point on the Laffer Curve, and secondarily (very much secondarily) on my own spreadsheet analysis regarding the algebra involved in calculating revenue-neutrality.
Again, please see my blog at the link I provided in my previous comment.
Pardon the typos: I meant
Pardon the typos: I meant "inflection"
Of course
(Note: I cqan't get these fat old arthritic fingers to hit one key most of the time, so don't worry about typos. I;ve got a million of them.)
Of course. So, there should be no problem in getting someone to say, "It's thataway." Once you know it's thataway, you know which way to move the rate.
Remember, I am talking bout people who mutter the Laffer stuff and don't know what i'm talking about when i ask them where it is in their opinion. Most of the time, these people believe in a sort of religious sense) that lowering taxes always leads to increased tax revenue. They have talking points, political talking points, not insight.
But the same question comes up: why do you think it is thataway?
Well, I would suggest you
Well, I would suggest you take the same approach with such people that I do, albeit with limited success, but probably as much success as possible: Present them with quotes representing the consensus view among CONSERVATIVE economists, including Bush's own current and former top economists, all of who say that the Bush tax cuts have NOT had a positive impact on revenues (or even come close to revenue-neutrality) and ask them, "If it's so obvious to you -- and Limbaugh, etc., -- that tax cuts always cause higher revenues, and that the Bush tax cuts have done so, then why would all these prominent conservative economists, including Bush's own, say the opposite?
Of course, the diehard Kool-Aid drinkers will reply with the kind of approach that you recommend. They will say, "Well, that's just an appeal to authority. I've looked at the numbers myself and I see that after the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts revenues went up. Case closed."
Well, B
I take a different approach. I don't much talk to political religionists of any stripe. they simply bore me. Chanting bores me.
I sort of dismiss any absolute statement ("the market is always the best" or "corporate America is responsible for all the ills of the world"). It indicates a lack of the subtle.
What i am interested in is politics, that is, the proposing of practical solutions to practical problems, and the interplay of politicians to find ways to solve those problems.
Now, what do you think we shold do about that entitlement problem? I think the last time i engaged anyone on this problem, Social Security in particular, he left off telling me that "FDR was a great president, Social Security was good enough for him, it's been good enough for 70 years, and I will interpret any attempt to change it in any way as an attempt to destroy Social Security."
Before getting into possible
Before getting into possible solutions to entitlements, since I'm new here, I need to ask what is the policy/standard regarding "threadjacking" (getting into stuff on a thread that is unrelated to the topic of the diary)?
My prejudice
is that hboards like this should be like conversations, which develop on their own, have their own rights, and may go where they please (like Ives' songs). However, there is the "margin race," and others may not be so forgiving.
I haven't noticed any thread Nazis here who insist that there be nary a waver from the exact first topic, but you would do better to ask the regulars. I'm just here to point out the bad arguments, and the religious pronouncements.
I would say, however, that it would be a good topic for an essay, which I would welcome because i have been trying to get anyone to talk about it for five years over about twenty boards with no success. Seems to be a matter of hearing no evil, seeing no evil, means that there will be no evil.
Oh, and you present a false
Oh, and you present a false choice here:
I would both research it myself and seek the opinions of experts regardless of ideology (but cognizant of any potential bias due to their respective ideologies, if applicable), and I would also seek out experts who seemed to have no source of ideological bias or agenda.
And if I may reply to myself
And if I may reply to myself just to add a bit, when I researched the question of whether or not the Bush tax cuts have had a net positive impact on revenues or not, I started with prominent conservative economists, including Bush's own current and former top economists, who generally supported those tax cuts and support extending them. Why? If they had said "yes, the net impact on revenues has been positive," I would have had to take it with a grain of salt due to a substantial chance of insincerity or bias (due to vested interest, policy objectives, etc., not due to anything particular to the Bush economists or conservative economists generally). But, fortunately from the standpoint of my time and comfort level, I found a strong consensus even among THOSE economists. That's one good way to use expert opinion: not to seek out the opinions of experts who may have biases or objectives that might steer them toward conclusions supportive of your hypothesis, but to check the opinions of those who may have reason (bias or incentive to be insincere) in the opposite direction, and see if even THEY support your hypothesis.
I neglected to state
I neglected to state explicitly above that the "consensus even among THOSE economists" was that the Bush tax cuts have NOT had a positive net impact on revenues.
Good answer
More knowledge is always better. But one of these is necessary, the other not. You can do without the experts but not your own research.
So, let's say that you don't have the time to do both.
Anyway, you can see, if you read back, that I am not against consulting the so-called experts; I am against using that as a substitute for doing the work any rational person should do. I am against the war of the experts. I am for people taking respoinsibility for their own opinions by doing the work necessary to support them on the terms they are couched, not simply by citing some authority (a fallacy, of course) or by parroting your favourite experts' arguments.
And again, I feel I have to say this, I don't mind repeating arguments with citation, but ultimately one does this not because the person cited is an authority, but because they make a good argument that you subscribe to, and they make it, in your opinion, better than you can.
btw, I remember tht in my lifetime, the "experts" thought that an executive lifestyle cause stomach ulcers (based, in part, on the poorly done but much vaunted Harlow monkey experiments) and that the treatment of choice was the famous "bland diet."
Yet, nearly forty years ago, a psychology student working at a mental hospital that i knew proposed that the seemingly incurable ulcers in many of the Mexican and Mexican-American residents would be better treated by providing them with the typical diet of their culture. Despite the fact that this included very spicy food with lots of hot sauce, she was allowed to try it, and it worked. She had no training whatsoever, and certainly no expertise in medicine or diet. She was simply able to observe that the diet prescribed by the experts was not working.
And a couple of decade ago, a doubting doctor in Australia proposed that the cause of most ulcers was a particular bacteria. He was nearly laughed out of the profession. However, enough people decided to stop simply accepting what the "experts" said to look at his results, and over a couple of years, it was realized that he was right. yet, you can still find doctors who will not prescribe antibiotics for an ulcer!
I like your balanced approach. We should always maintain our skepticism. We should realize that everything in science is subject to change, and that a "consensus" means little in science. Only the science itself means something. And to get to that, you have to look at the reults yourself.
What makes it all the more important is the realization that when a scientist speaks out on policy, he is not speaking as a scientist, but is making a policy statement.
Baseball and music
Good luck getting an audition for the Red Sox or the Boston Symphony Orchestra if you don't have the credentials. It's a shorthand indication of either your accomplishment and experience or your innate ability (depending whether you consider the credentials representative of learned skills or just a signaling mechanism of natural talent). Fair or not, everyone trusts experts at some level.
Of course, there are those fun stories about people who "come out of nowhere" to attain recognition within their field. I like a system where people can break the mold now and then.
Certainly it's best to go to the primary scientific source but that's not quite the same thing as rerunning the analysis yourself. I'm not disparaging that, by the way -- here's
a very nice example of a conservative doing his own back of the envelope calculations on global warming.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Credentials again
I think you aren't getting my meaning of 'credentials.' I mean formal and official recognition. A degree. I'll bet that you can get a tryout with the Red Sox if rumour or a scout, even another player, tells the management that you are the best hitter he ever saw. They won't ask if you have a degree from Baseball University. In this case, the statements of others is not what i mean by credentials. In fact, credentials often substitute for the statements of others, as they did in the Computer case I cited. I remember once when hospital was trying to hire a nurse to head a treatment unit. theyt had a certain nurse in mind. but they had recently put in a requirement that the job be filled, if possible with someone possessing a BSN degree. The person that they had in mind for the job was a long time RN, and no one doubted her ability to do the job. She had done similar jobs in the past. A contrarian nurse I knew who had an MSN applied for the job just because she could prevent that nurse from being hired, and then, when they had to offer her the job, she refused it, causing another round of applications and interviews. this process was repeated 3 times before she relented. I asked her what she was doing, and she told me, "I just wanted to show them how ridiculous their rules were."
As for the Boston Symphony, I doubt very much if they ask Sarah Chang what degrees she has before they invite her to solo with them. And I don't care what degree you have, if your audition shows you to be a poor player, your credentials won't help you.
In my ten year career as a jazz musician, I was never once asked what degrees I had. Mostly, they'd say, "ok, show us what you can do." If they had a book, they wold ask you to read some of it. You might be asked to "sit in" for a night or two before being hired. I never heard, "you play great, you got rabbit ears, and I'd love to hire you, but you don't have the DFA we're looking for." When you go to your CD store to buy a jazz piano album, you don't choose Billy Taylor over Lennie Tristano because Taylor has a doctorate in music. I hope.
Not just degree
Although I'm guessing Julliard will open more doors than the U. I also meant who you studied with, where you've soloed, etc. Just like scientists have their PhD but also their publication record, successful proposals, and so forth. That's what I meant, not sure if it still matches your definition.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Julliard
grants degrees.
No, I'm talking about credentials like degrees or certifications. I'm not talking about reputation, or reflected reputation. (He studied at Julliard with so-and-so creates your reflected reputation, and a certain expectation, because of the reputation of Julliard and so-and-so.)
If you are trying to catch on with a jazz band, they may ask, "Who have you played with?" and be impressed or not with your answer. This may create or kill interest in you. But you still have to get your instrument out and play.
You don't get to say, "I can play the Tschaikovsky violin concerto better than anyone else, and I have a doctorate in music to prove it." You can say that you have performed this cocerto with this and that orchestras to rave reviews.
You might also have recommendations, which are also not credentials. Credentials are publicly recognized, often publicly defined. Recommendations are privately defined.
Here in oregon, and many other places, I presume, you can't get a job in an old folks home if you possess all the skills needed for the CNA certification, even if you can prove it, if you don't actually have the certification. (This happens commonly when someone lets their certification lapse, perhaps because they've taken another job. When they try to return, they find out that they have to retake the courses, most often, to be re-certified.) However, if you have the certification but not the skills, you CAN get a job.
In a hospital I worked in, a psychiatrist had fake credentials. But because he had the credentials, he was able to work there as a psychiatrist for five years despite the fact that he didn't possess the knowledge or skills to be one. After he was discovered, it seemed that everyone had a story where his lack of knowledge had been apparent, but because he had the credentials, he was never questioned.
Separate for back of envelope
nice example of a conservative doing his own back of the envelope calculations on global warming.
Here's where I have problems. Global Climate Change is a scientific question. It is not possible to have a "conservative" or "liberal" view of it. So I have a little rule of thumb. I don't bother with anything that even remotely looks like someone had a conclusion in mind, and worked to justify it. This is the second greatest sin against rationality, that is, looking for evidence with one's hypothesis in hand. Scientists don't do it.
Of course, it is possible that such an analysis could be correct, but usually it is not, and is not worth the effort. And heck, I don't have time or resources to keep up with the real thing.
And another thing
Science tends to be focused and not easily generalized in the global manner that politicians and political hacks would like. I believe that the reasoning for most political hacks is to make a statement about some policy ("we must stop using oil as soon as we can through draconian taxes and huge subsidies for other fuels" or "if we suddenly give up oil, the economy will collapse and the US will cease to be a viable nation"), and then to cherryp pick science to support that policy statement6. The object, in any case, is not science. Of course, it is nice to be able to say that science is generally on your side, but that is hardly the object. To take one example not immediately obvious, one does not hear the alarmists telling you why ethanol cannot be an answer, how solar has disappointed despite decades of intensive research (I know some people who have spent a career doing such research who started four decades ago with high hopes).
I'm just saying that we can look at the research and draw our own conclusion. We are smart enough.
Yes, Brendan, everyone trusts experts and those who set themselves up as experts some of the time at some level. For instance, to this day, people believe that children g4et hypoer when ingesting sugar, that they get a
"sugar rush," even see it, but the research all says that sugar puts children (and their parents) to sleep. As we say in TA, "When I believe it, I will see it."
You will forgive an old skeptic on a board that is more properly described as religious, I hope. After all, isn't the Pope just the kind of expert we are talking about? And heck, at least he is infallible (on matters of faith and morals only, of course. He may mis-predict the weather.)
Addendum
Computer Science is one of the fields in which credentialism is least correlated with ability -- I think that's because the field is evolving so quickly that by the time stuff gets to the classroom it's been common knowledge among workers for a while.
I know CS people who would prefer to hire someone from a less prestigious university because they feel that applicant would have more useful skills than a comparable student from the prestigious institution.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Experts vs. Experts
In a world where experts are often in conflict with each other (e.g., Iraq), who do we believe?
Science experts are a class of their own. Because of the long-established peer review system, I have faith in the consensus of scientists. For instance, right now there is a giant pile of cash waiting for anyone who can contradict the global climate change consensus.
Unlike the non-science sector, there is a large market for unconventional ideas, because for a scientist, the only feeling greater than having one's own work accepted by the community is the successful puncturing of another scientist's work. Throughout history, no scientist has ever been lauded for his or her conservatism -- thinking like the rest of the world is not what scientists do. The entire science community is built on contradiction after contradiction, which the words "I agree" being the hardest thing one could wish to extract from a scientist.
Now, plenty of scientists have tried to puncture holes in climate change theory, yet they cannot seem to get past the peer-review process despite all the oil money thrown their way. You have to wonder why this is; after all, there can't be a whole lot of discrepancy between the amount funding provided by academia and the amount provided by the oil industry, so one can hardly believe that non-scientific forces are at play. Besides, contrary to popular belief, scientists have always played global warming in a conservative manner; we are now learning that horror stories of the 22nd century are beeing seen occurring today because climate models have been created to avoid looking alarmist. Oops.
Socialisme ou Barbarie!
Yup, $$ in uncertainty
for scientists (rather than in consensus) undermines the idea that they're biased towards agreement.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
'The experts' are
saying the fire in San Diego is 0% contained.
Does anyone disagree with the experts in this case.
For once, I don't think so.
I'm only half stupid
You know, missliberties
for us, you and me, the biggest mystery is jut how they were able to sneak George Bush into California to set all those fires, then sneak him back to Washington without anyone noticing. Reminds me of the great Iraq Thanksgiving caper.
Funny
I try and find a situation for once where all the experts agree, and you turn it into a partisan attack, er I mean a joke.
Why do you constantly do this? Do you have a point?
I'm only half stupid
Ha-Ha-Ha
I treated the comment with the seriousness in it.
I could have treated it seriously by asking you if you could imagine a situation where there were several fires in an area, and you were working with some people against one, and you had doused it entirely, gone into a nearby house, and heard a certified per cent fire containment expert (I didn't know there were any, but...) say that the fire was 0% contained.
I've been talking credentialed experts. My take on % containment is that they are estimates.
And anyway, I wasn't being partisan. I was being empathetic. How DO you think they got him in and out of California to start those fires?
ah but implicit in your initial comment
was the slam on those who "stupidly" don't agree with the experts. All your comment meant was - "see dummies, the fire is visible to everyone, all the experts agree, now don't you agree dummies?"
And then you chide MS :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I didn't see it that way
but now I do.
It takes a fire for experts to be non-partisan was the intent.
I'm only half stupid