04 Oct 08
Here are the only two statements from the article that matter:
"Our survey is not, by any means, a scientific poll of all economists."
"A total of 142 responded, of whom 46% identified themselves as Democrats, 10% as Republicans and 44% as neither. This skewed party breakdown may reflect academia’s Democratic tilt, or possibly Democrats’ greater propensity to respond. Still, even if we exclude respondents with a party identification, Mr Obama retains a strong edge—though the McCain campaign should be buoyed by the fact that 530 economists have signed a statement endorsing his plans."
04 Oct 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterYour constant blathering, if representative of Republican views, makes that 10% seem suspect.
Here are the only two statements from the article that matter:
"Our survey is not, by any means, a scientific poll of all economists."
"A total of 142 responded, of whom 46% identified themselves as Democrats, 10% as Republicans and 44% as neither. This skewed party breakdown may reflect academia’s Democratic tilt, or possibly Democrats’ gr ...[text shortened]... ould be buoyed by the fact that 530 economists have signed a statement endorsing his plans."
04 Oct 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI should not have been so harsh. Your statement in this thread was not the sort of blathering to which you are accustomed. Of course, you did throw in your "academia is liberal" refrain as if that's a bad thing. The Economist is well known as a liberal publication, which contributes in no small measure to its reputation as a reliable and credible source.
These two quotes, Wooly Bully, are from The Economist.
My point about the 10% is that the sort of stuff you usually post, as well as the postings of several other conservatives here, FOX "news", Rush and Ann, ... is of a nature that no one with an advanced degree should feel comfortable espousing. Inasmuch as The Economist is a credible publication aiming to inform and be informed by the work of professional economists, it's conservatives cannot embrace the Bush regime and must struggle to find merit in McCain's programme. Needless to say, most of your rhetoric in these forums is considerably beneath the dignity of the conservatism espoused by the likes of Amity Shlaes, Thomas Sowell, Larry Hunter, and their ilk.
04 Oct 08
Originally posted by WulebgrThe Economist is centrist, not liberal. That means they are liberal or conservative depending on which make most sense to them.
I should not have been so harsh. Your statement in this thread was not the sort of blathering to which you are accustomed. Of course, you did throw in your "academia is liberal" refrain as if that's a bad thing. The Economist is well known as a liberal publication, which contributes in no small measure to its reputation as a reliable and credible sour ...[text shortened]... vatism espoused by the likes of Amity Shlaes, Thomas Sowell, Larry Hunter, and their ilk.
From 'About Us' at http://www.economist.com/help/DisplayHelp.cfm?folder=663377 :
"What, besides free trade and free markets, does The Economist believe in? 'It is to the Radicals that The Economist still likes to think of itself as belonging. The extreme centre is the paper's historical position.' That is as true today as when Crowther said it in 1955. The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability. It has backed conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It has supported the Americans in Vietnam. But it has also endorsed Harold Wilson and Bill Clinton, and espoused a variety of liberal causes: opposing capital punishment from its earliest days, while favouring penal reform and decolonisation, as well as—more recently—gun control and gay marriage."
The Economist is a darn good magazine.