Students who take Economics Classes vote Republican

https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibr...orts/sr450.pdf

Quote:

---

To briefly preview our results, those who took more economics classes or who majored in economics or business were more likely to be members of the Republican party and less likely to join the Democratic party. Those findings hold even after controlling for the higher salary,higher equity in real estate holdings, and earning a graduate degree. Neither the number ofeconomics classes taken nor majoring in economics are related to the decision to vote in the 2000presidential election, or in the most recent state or local elections.

---

Interesting study from the New York Fed that shows voting Republican is directly correlated to the number of economics classes a person takes in college.

lol, the shitty Keynesian economics classes at that.. imagine if they taught real economics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dannno

lol, the shitty Keynesian economics classes at that.. imagine if they taught real economics.

---

If Keynesian economics were taught they probably would vote Independent over Republican. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dannno

lol, the shitty Keynesian economics classes at that.. imagine if they taught real economics.

---

They'd vote for Ron Paul.

That helps explain who fruity gender studies students vote for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dannno

lol, the $#@!ty Keynesian economics classes at that.. imagine if they taught real economics.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phill4paul

If Keynesian economics were taught they probably would vote Independent over Republican.

---

"Keynesian" economics, as in traditional "demand is everything" economics isn't really taught anymore; it is no longer part of the mainstream. What people call "Keynesian" economics today is really "neo-Keynesian" economics, which is a mix of traditional Keynes, behavioral economics, old-school-Friedman-style monetarist economics, a smattering of Adam Smith-like classical economics, and a mix of some various odds and ends. In general, neo-Keynesian economics is centrist, generally favoring less government regulation in the economy (plus low taxes, less spending, less regulation). However, they are incredibly supportive of central banks and believe that central banks can add fuel to booms and mitigate busts. Basically, when things are going well, thank the central banks, and when things aren’t going well, it is because the central bank didn’t make the right decisions. They do support fiscal stimulus (higher spending and lower taxes) in a temporary fashion and/or when central banks fail to act.


Unfortunately, this distinction is lost on conservative blowhards who go mental at the word “Keynesian”.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr.No.

"Keynesian" economics, as in traditional "demand is everything" economics isn't really taught anymore; it is no longer part of the mainstream. What people call "Keynesian" economics today is really "neo-Keynesian" economics, which is a mix of traditional Keynes, behavioral economics, old-school-Friedman-style monetarist economics, a smattering of Adam Smith-like classical economics, and a mix of some various odds and ends. In general, neo-Keynesian economics is centrist, generally favoring less government regulation in the economy (plus low taxes, less spending, less regulation). However, they are incredibly supportive of central banks and believe that central banks can add fuel to booms and mitigate busts. Basically, when things are going well, thank the central banks, and when things aren’t going well, it is because the central bank didn’t make the right decisions. They do support fiscal stimulus (higher spending and lower taxes) in a temporary fashion and/or when central banks fail to act.

Unfortunately, this distinction is lost on conservative blowhards who go mental at the word “Keynesian”.

---

They still hang to the basic fallacies of Maynard's gobbledygook; sticky wages, idle resources, full employment via printing/spending.

Krugman's death star fits in fine with Maynard's hole-digging.

Bad ideas rarely die, they just continually repackage themselves to conceal their failings.

Marxism comes to mind, rebranded and relegated to the softer sciences, mostly, but still alive and kicking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0

They still hang to the basic fallacies of Maynard's gobbledygook; sticky wages, idle resources, full employment via printing/spending.

Krugman's death star fits in fine with Maynard's hole-digging.

Bad ideas rarely die, they just continually repackage themselves to conceal their failings.

Marxism comes to mind, rebranded and relegated to the softer sciences, mostly, but still alive and kicking.

---

See the above on going mental at the word Keynesian. And you've also shit your pants about "Marxism" being alive and well.
Sticky prices/wages is still taught because there is a cornucopia of academic research and evidence supporting the theory (indeed, only some classical economists even debate sticky wages anymore). Same with idle resources (if you think there are never idle resources, you don't have eyes, ears, or a brain). But neo-Keynesian economics balks at the idea that you can reach full employment via printing and spending. Their whole theory (which is backed by some impressive modeling) is that there is a natural rate of unemployment, and if you engineer more employment, you will get inflation. This will happen no matter how the extra employment is created; through government spending money or the private sector spending money. They're dubious about government spending (other than core functions) except in the case of distress; these distressed situations are where unemployment becomes higher than the "natural rate" and fiscal stimulus can accelerate a return to normalcy. Although again, they favour monetary policy over fiscal policy, and generally also believe that central banks can prevent distress using higher interest rates/anti-stimulatory monetary policy.

Then again, you might find some neo-Keynesians who disagree on the bulk of what I just typed. It is one of the least ideological schools out there, generally preaching data, academia, and new research. Of course, that makes it subject to its own biases (they don't seem to catch on to the latest research, for one), but it also provides for a very large tent. It is the reason why neo-Keynesian economists tend to have the best scores when it comes to economic predictions (like being the best American wine, but I digress...and they tend to be the best out of the different schools they poll, but I digress again)

If you believe in markets, you'll realize the truth that over the course of time, bad ideas die, and good ones live on. That's the reason why classical economics is pretty much dead as a school, why Friedmanite Chicago school economics is gone, why Marxist economics only exists in the fringe corners of the internet, why Austrian economics is a joke...hell, it is the reason why old-school traditional Keynesian economics generally has no place in academia, trade journals, or finance publications anymore.

the way to get rid of a recession is spend spend spend!

nuff said.