Who would Dilbert vote for?

[sparkchaser]

Saw this on Slashdot and I'm interested in your opinion on it.

Scott Adams's Political Survey of Economists

Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, wanted to have unbiased information about which presidential candidate would be better for the economy, so he financed his own survey of 500 economists. He gives a bit more detail about the results in a CNN editorial, along with disclosure of his own biases and guesses as to the biases of the economists who responded.

The bottom line (from the CNN link):

Overall, 59 percent of our economists say Obama would be best for the economy long term, with 31 percent picking McCain, and 8 percent saying there would be no difference.

I was expecting the majority of Economists to be Republicans but it turns out that is not the case:

48 percent -- Democrats

17 percent -- Republicans

27 percent -- Independents

3 percent -- Libertarian

5 percent -- Other or not registered

 

[SFG75]

Of the social sciences, economics is perhaps the most contrived. It's nothing more than the study of how to organize a system of numbers to support the kind of system you want, label it "efficient," and whamo! I'm kind of shocked that a majority of them said Obama would be better off for the country in the long term. They would smile and say the economy is great if we ship jobs overseas and everyone is working at McDonald's with no healthcare for $6.25 an hour while companies maximize profits at the management level. Pigs all of them.

 

[Occlith]

Pigs all of them.

And probably lipstick wearing pigs, at that.
As Adams says: “If an economist uses a complicated model to predict just about anything, you can ignore it. By analogy, a doctor can’t tell you the exact date of your death in 50 years. But if a doctor tells you to eat less and exercise more, that’s good advice even if you later get hit by a bus. Along those same lines, economists can give useful general advice on the economy, even if you know there will be surprises. Still, be skeptical.”

 

[beer good]

A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.

The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks "What do two plus two equal?" The mathematician replies "Four." The interviewer asks "Four, exactly?" The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says "Yes, four, exactly."

Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The accountant thinks about it and says "On average, four - give or take ten percent, but on average, four."

Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and in a conspiratorial tone whispers "What do you want it to equal?"

I've studied economics, and I think that's funny. (More here.) Economics isn't an exact science when it comes to predicting the future or even analysing past events. No social science can be, since people aren't always rational, society is complex, and different people have different views on what makes us tick. Economics lives off simplifications and assumptions; since the real world isn't simple and doesn't always match the assumptions made, they're not always going to be 100% right and they're always going to disagree to some degree or even completely. (Famously, economics is the only discipline where not only can two people get the Nobel prize for saying the exact opposite thing, but those two people can end up sharing the same prize as Hayek and Myrdal did.)

However, and I realise I sound way too butthurt here, I think dismissing it all as just the work of "pigs" is ridiculous. Or are you saying that the economy is just pure chaos? That there is absolutely no pattern, no rules, no way of analysing or predicting it, that stuff just happens? Hey, let's raise the interest rate. I have no idea what it's going to do, but it's bound to do something cool.

That's what economics is: trying to see those patterns, trying to work out what happens to the economy if we do this, if we do that, if we ignore this, if we raise the price of that. It's not exact, it's not always correct, but it's better than pretending those patterns and rules don't exist. Scratch the surface of any major economic crisis, and you'll often find a politician who asked and ignored every economist he could find until he found one who said yes sir, of course two plus two equals whatever you want it to equal.

Then again...

An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today.

 

[silverseason]

Who would Dilbert vote for?

The loser.