Economics & conservatism

Two interesting data points this week seem to confirm one of my long-standing suspicions: economic knowledge and conservative political philosophy are strongly correlated. My belief, cultivated from years of observing liberals I know, is that those on the political left tend to favor some form of moral or ethical worldview, placing cold economic realities much further down the scale of importance than conservatives like myself.

The first point is a study conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (not exactly a hotbed of conservative propaganda):

Most notably, the study found that the more economics classes a person took, the more likely he or she was to be a member of the Republican Party and to donate money to a political candidate or a cause.

“In sum,” the study said, “those taking more economics classes favored less regulation or government intervention affecting prices for specific goods and services, including wages and salaries.”

The second point of reference is a more controversial survey conducted by Professor of Econ at George Mason, Dr. Daniel Klein, and Zogby researchers. They asked eight questions, and counted as incorrect only those responses that explicitly opposed basic economic consensus on each subject. The design of the study could have been more neutral had they asked questions that challenged conservative sacred cows, but at least they admit that in the WSJ article summary. Here are the results:

Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.

Americans in the first three categories do reasonably well. But the left has trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics.

I consider myself to be a Libertarian with an asterix (I don't always agree with Libertarian foreign policy leanings - I tend to be more of a hawk).

Health Care Costs

I should have been blogging about Obamacare this past year, but family and work obligations overwhelmed me.

One of the big claims that the administration has made on this push is that the bill is deficit neutral, or even better: it will "bend the cost curve" down. Critics like Republican Paul Ryan (Wis) have done a good job dismantling that argument. The reality is that we cannot afford this new entitlement, especially at a time when we're faced with the insolvency of our two existing entitlements.

The Wall St Journal revisited the issue yesterday with The Cost Control Illusion, a rebuttal of administration propaganda being sown in a last-ditch effort to counter the charge of fiscal irresponsibility. It concludes with this zinger:

ObamaCare's real cost-control plan boils down to this: First subsidize coverage so much that costs explode, raise taxes as much as possible to pay for it, and when that isn't enough hand power to an unelected committee to limit treatment and control prices by government order. This is what Democrats are voting for.

I concur.