« Public libraries for tools? | Main | Small thoughts, from the little people »
Dilbert's poll of economists on Obama vs. McCain
Obama wins, 59-31 percent, here is the story. The individuals responding to the poll had this distribution of opinion:
48 percent -- Democrats
17 percent -- Republicans
27 percent -- Independents
3 percent -- Libertarian
5 percent -- Other or not registered
In other words, Obama didn't do as well as I would have expected, relative to the survey group. There is much more information in the article, such as this:
On the issue of international trade, only 42 percent of our Democratic economists support Obama's plans, with 34 percent favoring McCain. Independents favored McCain on this question by 63 percent to 16 percent, while favoring Obama overall.
Another indicator of objectivity is that the income levels of the economists have little impact on their opinions. The economists with lower incomes are no more likely to favor taxing the rich than the rich economists favor taxing themselves.
Likewise, economists in the academic world were largely on the same page as the nonacademic types in predicting which candidate would be best for the long term.
I thanks Alice Miller for the pointer. And if you do leave a comment, note that the marginal return to being partisan in this setting is very low or even negative.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on September 16, 2008 at 10:56 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
The most surprising finding to me initially is the disproportionate representation of Democrats among academic economists.
Posted by: me at Sep 16, 2008 11:03:06 AM
And if you do leave a comment, note that the marginal return to being partisan in this setting is very low or even negative.
By the way, here's a beaver.
Posted by: fish on a bicycle at Sep 16, 2008 11:03:53 AM
I suspect that economists don't support the candidate that is best for the economy, rather, just like other occupations, they support what they perceive to be best for economists.
Posted by: Tom Kelly at Sep 16, 2008 11:17:18 AM
Tyler,
Any comment on this remark from the story?
"In my view, if an economist uses a complicated model to predict
just about anything, you can ignore it."
Posted by: ionides at Sep 16, 2008 11:17:42 AM
Oh come now. The vote was pretty much along party lines, the same way it stacks up in articles in professional journals. It proves and discloses nothing.
Posted by: Butch at Sep 16, 2008 11:29:10 AM
48% doesn't seem a disproportionate representation of Democrats. After all, what proportion of academics are Democrats? 80%? 90%? I'm making up numbers here but that's what it seemed like as a student.
Posted by: Noah Yetter at Sep 16, 2008 11:33:37 AM
Tyler,
Here's the problem with the part of the survey about priorities. Some of the priorities are specific policies, such as eliminating the death tax. Others are categories such as education. So I might think education is very important because we should get the government out of the business of compulsory schooling. If I rank education as important, it is taken to mean that I want government to spend more on it. I, knowing that that's how it will be taken, game the system, not to deceive, but so as _not_ to deceive.
Best,
David
Posted by: David R. Henderson at Sep 16, 2008 11:36:03 AM
These results seem so weird to me. For example, the survey shows economists as favoring Obama's approach on health care; why would any economist have that preference?
My suspicion is that the Dem economists surveyed don't actually favor the policies announced on Obama's webpage, but instead think that he will enact far more moderate policies if elected. In other words, I don't think you can use this survey data to argue in favor of liberal economic policies. What we really need to see is a survey that asks economists direct views on economic issues, like "should the tax system be more progressive?"; "should we revise NAFTA to make it more labor-friendly?"; or "should we adopt single-payer health care?" My hunch is that if we did that, we'd see that most economists really are free market, after all.
Posted by: bla bla at Sep 16, 2008 11:40:40 AM
bla bla said... the survey shows economists as favoring Obama's approach on health care; why would any economist have that preference?
Most economists I've met have been in favor of single-payer health care because it solves the potentially ruinous problems of adverse selection and moral hazard in the health insurance market. Even if single payer is not their #1 choice, it's relatively easy to favor Obama over McCain, whose plan consists largely of creating new taxes on health care.
Further, while I think you're absolutely right about certain issues (like NAFTA), I don't think that you're right to imply that economists oppose progressive taxation--most do.
These positions were actually pretty predictable; Bryan Caplan found the same results in his analysis economists' positions in The Myth of the Rational Voter.
Also, as an aside...
Tom Kelley said... I suspect that economists don't support the candidate that is best for the economy, rather, just like other occupations, they support what they perceive to be best for economists.
Since economists tend to be relatively high income individuals, wouldn't that bias them in favor of McCain?
Posted by: brian at Sep 16, 2008 11:58:05 AM
only 3% of economists are libertarian? yowza. if you lot don't think about the dead hand of govt then who is? it hasn't been the donkeys or the elephants for the last 20 years...
Posted by: tdp at Sep 16, 2008 12:02:59 PM
Since economists tend to be relatively high income individuals, wouldn't that bias them in favor of McCain?
Not when you consider that Democrats are more likely to create more demand for economists to manage the sectors of the economy they place under greater government control. The full report does show economists making over $200k supporting McCain the most, but those in the $100-200k group support McCain less than those below $100k.
Has anyone found the actual breakdown of responses by academia/finance/consulting etc.? I looked in the ppt and cannot find it.
Posted by: Horatio at Sep 16, 2008 12:24:15 PM
bla bla: If you talk regularly to economists, you would not be surprised that most of them favor Obama's health care plan. It's better on most dimensions economists care about.
Today's WSJ helps explain why:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122152292213639569.html
Although it was written by Obama supporters, I suspect most economists would agree with the gist of their analysis.
Posted by: a student of economics at Sep 16, 2008 12:36:00 PM
Tyler, you say "In other words, Obama didn't do as well as I would have expected, relative to the survey group."
However, the survey group appears to be a roughly random sample of economists, so their preference for Democratic policies should not be discounted away. On the contrary, it's some of the most important information in the survey.
Also, note that Obama did better among Democratic economists than McCain did among Republican economists. Obama also did better among the independents. So what's the basis for your comment?
Despite McCain's comments about not caring for the judgments of what he calls "so-called economists" and his self-professed weaknesses with the topic, it's important for those of us who DO respect economists to take note of their views.
Posted by: a student of economics at Sep 16, 2008 12:43:56 PM
Democrats are more likely to create more demand for economists to manage the sectors of the economy they place under greater government control.
You betcha, Horatio! We're blowing the dust off our Leontief matrices and debating strategies for full collectivization. Getting a Republican administration to nationalize finance for us was an unexpected bonus.
Posted by: Colin Danby at Sep 16, 2008 1:47:31 PM
"Has anyone found the actual breakdown of responses by academia/finance/consulting etc.?"
I'd also be interested on the breakdown by economic school - neoclassicals, Keynesians, New-Keynesians, Post-Keynesians, New Institutionalist, Austrians, micro versus macro etc.
Though I think the results would be obvious.
Posted by: liberty at Sep 16, 2008 2:01:18 PM
1. I think a lot of people here are conflating economics with political philosophy.
2. As a student of eceonomcs briefly alluded to, Obama may not be an economist but at least he curious aboutthe subject and takes it seriously (which could be seen by looking at his team of economic advisors). McCain on the other hand has confessed ignorance of the subject. So I do not find the results of the survey surprising.
Posted by: MS at Sep 16, 2008 2:14:11 PM
I'm suprised it is not more even. Given the current state of thing, economists should know that we'll get nothing but populist BS from either candidate.
Posted by: aaron at Sep 16, 2008 2:21:04 PM
I think what most people are missing in this thread is that economists are, in fact, people! I know that may be a shock to some of you. But most people (economists included) do not vote as they have been trained (say, as libertarians), but instead because they have preferences over issues. Some people care more about social issues or the environment than others, and this is just a reflection of that fact.
And at the risk of going political, this survey may just reflect the fact that economists are highly educated. Based on other polls, highly educated people tend to be be afraid of Sarah Palin.
Posted by: CG at Sep 16, 2008 2:42:20 PM
This is like releasing the pre-season AP poll before the bowl games start. I bet the results would be substantially different if the questions were asked today. Scott Adams has been teasing this since before either convention, before the VP picks, and before the latest meltdowns on Wall Street. It is literally old news the day it's released.
Posted by: BoscoH at Sep 16, 2008 2:47:59 PM
student of economics,
Thanks for the pointer - that is some scary stuff!
Let's take a look at the five main points from the article.
[i]- Learning. One-third of medical costs go for services at best ineffective and at worst harmful. Fifty billion dollars will jump-start the long-overdue information revolution in health care to identify the best providers, treatments and patient management strategies.[/i]
So government is effectively going to manage this by telling people what treatments they can and cannot choose. Great. There's nothing wrong with collecting information on effectiveness - but with government as provider, guess who won't be able to decide to take a "risky" new treatment, or try a procedure with a low probability of success but that is the only hope for a recovery? The consumer, that's who.
[i]- Rewarding. Doctors and hospitals today are paid for performing procedures, not for helping patients. Insurers make money by dumping sick patients, not by keeping people healthy. Mr. Obama proposes to base Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals and doctors on patient outcomes (lower cholesterol readings, made and kept follow-up appointments) in a coordinated effort to focus the entire payment system around better health, not just more care.[/i]
So doctors are going to be incentivized away from trying to treat the riskiest cases? Great! And when the patients don't follow the doctors' recommendations, how is the long arm of the state going to react? Actually, a lot of doctors' compensation is going to depend on genetics of patients, patients' cooperation, and avoiding risk. Super!
[i]- Pooling. The Obama plan would give individuals and small firms the option of joining large insurance pools. With large patient pools, a few people incurring high medical costs will not topple the entire system, so insurers would no longer need to waste time, money and resources weeding out the healthy from the sick, and businesses and individuals would no longer have to subject themselves to that costly and stressful process.[/i]
This is interesting, and perhaps workable. But it doesn't solve the basic disconnect that has created a lot of the problems with insurance: the customer is the company buying the plan, not the patient getting the care. How will the Obama plan address this disconnect?
[i]- Preventing. In today's health-care market, less than one dollar in 25 goes for prevention, even though preventive services -- regular screenings and healthy lifestyle information -- are among the most cost-effective medical services around. Guaranteeing access to preventive services will improve health and in many cases save money.[/i]
If prevention is very cheap, relatively speaking, and old people have lots of money to spend on expensive treatments, and rich people have lots to spend on voluntary surgeries, those spending figures aren't exactly surprising. Much better to set targets for percentages of the population getting preventative care - though, given many localities have moved away from mandatory vaccination programs, I'm not certain how he would enforce this other than to bring in the state to force people to take these preventative measures. Maybe that sounds like a good idea?
[i]- Covering. Controlling long-run health-care costs requires removing the hidden expenses of the uninsured. The reforms described above will lower premiums by $2,500 for the typical family, allowing millions previously priced out of the market to afford insurance.[/i]
What about breaking the tie with employment? Or creating more doctors by either making the AMA certify more med schools or allowing foreign docs to practice here? How about increasing supply?
McCain's plan isn't all roses either. But I can see why people who think the government should force people to do what's "best" for them would like this plan...
Posted by: CJS at Sep 16, 2008 3:16:22 PM
Nobody in their right mind would consider economists to be people.
I mean, read this blog.
Posted by: at Sep 16, 2008 3:16:36 PM
What concerns me the most is that 71% ranked education as extremely important, yet many still supported the candidate who refuses to consider more school choice and competition.
Posted by: JJ at Sep 16, 2008 3:17:47 PM
I have to agree with CJS. Some elements of the plan are creepy. I'd highlight 1,2,4, and 5. You'll never get healthcare costs down without increasing supply. Prevention proved to be a pipe dream over the past decade. The others go without saying, just bad, bad ideas.
Posted by: aaron at Sep 16, 2008 4:12:17 PM
The sample is not of academics. He surveyed a random sample of members of the AEA. Friends of mine who took jobs after graduate school in the private sector and government agencies have maintained their AEA membership, so while I don't know the actual ratio, I'm certain that it contains some folks on Wall Street and in consulting.
The survey was also didn't ask for preferences, it tried to elicit non-partison views on the issues. For instance, I am a strong Obama supporter but when I was filling out the survey I found myself having to let McCain look good becuase I stuck to the facts. You can see that in the fact that 80% said that Obama would be raise taxes on the wealthy.
I found the most interesting finding the fact that 48% of economists are democrats. I wonder how this compares to other professionals.
Posted by: A surveyed economist at Sep 16, 2008 4:13:38 PM
Except number 5. I'm not quite sure what that means.
Euthanasia I think.
Posted by: aaron at Sep 16, 2008 4:14:12 PM
