Students who take Economics Classes vote Republican

[Krugminator2]

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

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.

[dannno]

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

[phill4paul]

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

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

[Suzanimal]

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

They'd vote for Ron Paul.

[inthehall]

That helps explain who fruity gender studies students vote for.

[Dr.No.]

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

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”.

[r3volution 3.0]

"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.