review of Dilbert economist survey

the raw please

So this was the great thing I missed last week... a survey which wasn't by itself terribly useful at discerning the opinions of people. What I did find useful was the list of 'top' issues. (I, unlike Scott Adams, was aware most economists are Democrats, thanks be to Cato and the Carter administration).

1) Education. It's not clear whether this was meant as public education on financial matters or education in general, both, what. It's rather a vague subject. I'd definitely support a candidate who made some basic financial literacy a position point; if they were otherwise sound and sane. And I'd definitely agree this is probably one of the actual top issues of the campaign (not the faked top issues that the media has covered instead). As far as my own opinions, I don't think either candidate has put forth a plan that I feel addresses our national educational problems. I'd say neither of the two will make a difference here. Obama's plans are mostly to provide incentives for people after college. That however does not address the fact that most people in college shouldn't be there (they should be getting training more directly). Nor does it address the problems of how so many people arrived with "high school level" educations and the inability to then proceed further in higher education. I haven't really heard McCain talk at all about education but they both seem to be okay with NCLB..which means neither of them get any bonus points from me. Verdict: Both suck.

2) Health Care. McCain has a more free market approach here but it doesn't really create any short term solutions. If you are middle class or up in income you should probably have been moving your insurance toward privatization anyway. Tax benefits would help. If you are just poor enough to be not really dirt poor, then nothing in McCain's plan is going to make health care/insurance more affordable in the immediate future. Obama's plan is somewhat more palatable than say, the Clinton plan, but it still makes the basic assumptions that a) health care is a right (without defining either rights or health care) and b) that people should value it over other priorities. I'm not sold on those assumptions, hence I'm not a big fan of government mandates for health care. Nor am I convinced they reduce the costs by themselves anyway; there's plenty of evidence the contrary. Again, this is probably a neither vote. Both plans have some attractive elements and address different parts of the general health care problem; neither resolves it or presents a long term understanding of 'cost'. And yes, this should be one of the top issues. Verdict: both pretty weak

3) International trade: McCain. The union endorsed anti-free trade stance that is virtually required of a Democrat ticket is pretty obviously unpopular with economists. And most educated people come to think of it, which makes Obama's overall popularity with such people surprising. Obviously the non-economist educated folk have other higher priorities they value instead (I might not put in the top 3, but it's certainly the top 5 or 6). I'm not unequivocally in McCain's camp here. I'd prefer to see tariffs on sugar/sugar ethanol removed and most farm subsidies removed to facilitate freer trade on food for example. I haven't seen anything to suggest that farming is going to be opened up to the free market yet from GOP candidates either, but at least the whole 'must keep our shitty jobs here' mantra isn't on the ticket. Verdict: McCain, not even close.

4) Energy. This one probably should be ahead of trade, if only because parts of the trade pertain to energy developments (for example sugar tariffs). I'd have to say Obama is more likely to have a sensible plan here but neither one has a significantly different plan from the other. The one element I haven't liked is that Obama isn't very keen on nuclear power. But then unless we quit wasting the spent rods by burying them in mountains and waiting for the radioactive waste to kill humans off in a few hundred years, I guess I wouldn't be very keen on it either. Obama does put more of a premium on conservation, which is appealing, but isn't really an enforceable agenda (incentives maybe?) Verdict: Obama, sort of.

5) Encouraging tech/innovation. That's a pretty vague subset. I should think this is part of 'education' in a way. I'm not really hearing anything from either that they will enact some means that will spur creative energy beyond what is already taking place. In fact, in historical terms the creative energies of the free market are usually well ahead of government encouragements. What instead happens is the government steps in afterward and either 'endorses' the development by adopting it as a public works initiative or stifles it by not understanding it (such as they have tried to do with the internet and the radio spectrum at turns). I'm pretty sure things like solar power or wind have been funded by major corporations for decades (along with some government research). The idea that a President 'encourages' such behavior or that they even can do so is silly. Verdict: Economists aren't historians.

6) Wars/Homeland Security. Much as McCain at least demonstrated one instance of strategic thought, my basic impression is that he has not illustrated a strategy. Instead he has illustrated the problems and threats and promises to deal with them, in some vague undetermined way which is somehow obviously better than Obama's way. While Obama has his usual vagueness in answering questions dealing with these subjects, the hints of strategy are more promising (to me) for international security. Verdict: Obama.

7) Mortgage/housing crisis. Obviously Bushv2 has no clue what to do here. I don't think either of the candidates do either. Since this is to me a ludicrously simple problem, it should be higher on the list (easy solutions). I have several suggestions which I've read or cobbled together from my fragmented economic research.
7a) break up the big banks so we can't get into this 'too big to fail' business.
7b) actually enforce regulations on the books
7c) including those which pertain to making loans to people who obviously can't afford them.
7d) don't bail anybody out unless through FDIC. Banks or individuals.
7e) make the loan documents standardized with an easy summary page for consumers.
Since I have heard instead a very vague message of 'reform and regulate', I'd like to know what that means. But I'm pretty sure neither of them will make a difference because it's pretty clear neither of them knows what to do (other than that Bush/Bernake isn't doing it). Verdict: The idiots win

8) Social security. It's pretty obvious that the short term solution is to either cut benefits for people on the top end or increase the payroll tax for people on the top end. The long term is to get rid of the thing by phasing it out to a private retirement system, but nobody is willing to do this. While Obama has suggested raising the cap on the payroll taxes, it's not like this is really addressing the core problem. Verdict: Obama, but mostly a push.

9) Environmental policy. Obama. Duh. What is funny here is that McCain used to make a bigger deal about being a hawk on the whole global warming issue...and still was crushed in the survey by Obama. Despite my reservations on things like Al Gore's plans or Kyoto, I am perfectly willing to see regulations and incentives in place to deal with pollution. If for no other reasons than to deal with the problems of property rights and public health.

10) Budget. Obviously the economists know something or other here, they aren't all that keen on Obama's ability to control spending. Because of the partisan nature of the survey, a 3% edge is a defeat or at best a push. Even with a recessionary period, it's still necessary not to spend for the sake of spending. Obama has so many initiatives proposed that I'm curious to see how much they'd cost and how this would be fiscally appropriate or responsible. McCain at least has a rather more direct means to attempt to slash the budget deficit (pork, with presumably cuts in domestic spending). Verdict: McCain, sort of. (This depends on whether social programs are more valuable than budgetary policies)

11) Immigration. Funny how this one was so much lower when educated people are asked to rate it's importance. It's also basically the only Issue of the Ignorant that made it into the list. And, not surprisingly, there's not much of a difference between the two anyway. Verdict: push.

12) Increasing taxes on wealthy. Obama will obviously do this. He won't be doing it in the way McCain's ads suggest he will (by raising them on 'middle-class Americans', right...). It's debatable whether this is important or not, but considering this is America (where we throw tea away rather than pay taxes).... I'd suggest that it's important only because it's an issue the normal voter might understand (but won't because they don't pay enough attention). As far as what they should do.. I'd be pushing a total tax reform with a sales tax instead. It seems to actually make more money anyway than the alternative (Virginia for example did this recently). This would in fact be a much greater increase in taxes on 'the wealthy' simply because it's so easy for 'the wealthy' to not be earning taxable income in the first place while there's no way for money being spent to not be taxed under that type of system. There's still a big language problem between 'wealth' and 'income' in this country. Verdict: Obama will do this, but I'd prefer he do something else. McCain won't do anything useful-- push.

13) Reducing waste (pork). So basically the populist type messages got in on the tail end of the economist's lists. I consider this a useful thing, but not a very important thing. And it's McCain's wheelhouse (obviously the economists think so anyway). I suspect it's mostly show because there are still other ways to garner political support from 'boosters' without giving out pet projects, but even if it isn't, he won't be able to stem the entire flood of monies pouring out on this crap. Verdict: McCain, but I'm too cynical to think it will matter.

One will note that issues like abortion, gay marriage, and creationism did not appear. It should be no surprise that the GOP is losing so much support outside of these 'core' issues where the population is becoming more 'educated'.