The conservative distrust of expertise
It appears to me that conservatives are more likely than are liberals to question the findings of experts in a given field, and often prefer to trust their own analysis or instincts. I want to put forth a few examples of this tendency, discuss the pros and cons of such an approach, and then examine the origins of this ingrained conservative distrust of expertise. Caveat: this discussion simply cannot be had without resorting to generalizations and stereotypes, but I think there is insight to be gained nonetheless.
First, a few examples. On global warming, liberals are quick to quote the scientific consensus, quick to reference the IPCC findings; they align themselves with the experts in the field. Conservatives, in contrast, are unwilling to accept a result simply because it is backed by academic credentials, and are more willing to consider the scientific arguments advanced by non-traditional sources (think-tanks, for example). On evaluating Iraq, liberals place significant emphasis on the analysis of military officials, from generals down to privates, and are dismissive of the opinions of those who lack military experience. Conservatives are more likely to conduct their own investigations (via first-hand reporting or just googling) and to discount advice from long-serving military officials. On education, liberals generally trust teachers to prepare students, while conservatives are more likely to homeschool their children. On food and product safety, liberals count on the government agency tasked with regulation to render an informed decision, while conservatives don't. On voting fraud, liberals cite the research of computer scientists; conservatives rely on personal experience. On environmental damage, liberals trust the advice of ecologists and biologists who conservatives consider biased based on their chosen career. And so on and so forth. Now, I grant that some of these quickly listed examples are not particularly persuasive, and one could argue the merits of any particular case, but I do think that overall the pattern is difficult to deny: conservatives are more likely than are liberals to distrust experts. Is that good or bad?
It's both, of course. Good because it's critical to avoid taking results on faith just because somebody with a PhD says so; good because it's important not to abandon common sense in the face of technical details; good because sometimes experts have an agenda that goes beyond their field of expertise; good because sometimes a little skepticism uncovers a big error or even a lie. Appeal to authority is a classic logic error that conservatives are less likely to commit. It's bad because it's just not possible to match a lifetime of study and observation with five minutes googling, and the can-do investigative attitude can lead to a paranoid unwillingness to accept even an overwhelming consensus. It's particularly bad when the refusal to accept the expert conclusion is rooted in a political stance (rather than being based on a deep understanding of the topic); this can lead to classic confirmation bias. Note that liberals can (and should) exercise caution in accepting the conclusions of any particular expert, but this would only cause them to reject one bit of evidence while retaining the larger case that is accumulated on years of expert observation and analysis. However, if a conservative begins by dismissing experts it is certainly possible to conduct some useful calculations and draw some basic conclusions but it is unlikely that the end result will have anywhere near the sophistication of that which was earlier rejected. Well, I think my liberal bias for valuing expertise is becoming apparent, so let's move on to the most interesting question: what drives this dichotomy?
Note that the roles played by liberals and conservatives above initially appear opposite to their traditional political stereotypes. We have the liberals accepting and the conservatives questioning authority. Of course, the authority in question is based on academic or scientific credentials, or on the experience of a decades-long career in the field; what makes this particular type of authority so easily subject to question by conservatives? Perhaps it's the academic origin -- liberals dominate academia, and conservatives distrust the conclusions of liberals. Or maybe it's not about authority or origin at all, maybe it's right in line with traditional political stereotypes: conservatives value self-reliance, even when it comes to evaluating a topic in which they are not expert. Finally, the explanation may be indicative of an entirely different correlation (h/t to KW at the Forvm for this suggestion): perhaps people grow more distrustful of expertise as they get older, maybe as a result of observing the experts change their minds on many issues with the changing decades. In this case, of course, the liberal/conservative divide would just be a consequence of people also tending to become more conservative as they age.
So, what do you think? Agree or disagree on the premise that conservatives distrust expertise? What about the pros/cons of such an approach? Finally, which hypothesis for this tendency appears most plausible? Are there areas (maybe economics) in which this distrust of expertise is inherent to liberals rather than conservatives? If so, what differentiates them from the trend?
(Repeat of caveat: this is a broad-brush picture and I've omitted qualifiers throughout for convenience. I certainly realize and accept that in any particular situation any particular conservative or liberal could act quite differently than described above.)
Comments :
Outstanding!
Brendan,
Excellent post !! As you know, I'm new to SwordsCrossed, having spent the last several months blogging at RedState, so I don't know if your diary here is representative of a higher quality on SwordsCrossed than that to which I'm accustomed, but it's just great to see such an intelligent diary that is thought-provoking and challenging without being merely rhetorical.
I haven't blogged at dKos or other liberal sites, so I don't have a point of comparison as far as blogging discourse, but I can certainly confirm, if -- again, IF -- my experience on RedState provides a representative view of some substantial segment of conservatives, that there is a very strong tendency to reject the consensus conclusions of experts when they conflict with conclusions that fit conservative ideology and/or conservative/Republican talking points.
The most striking example in my experience was on the subject of the relationship between the Bush tax cuts and revenues. I presented numerous quotes of prominent conservative economists, including Bush's own current and former top economists, all disagreeing with the extreme supply-side talking presumption that the Bush tax cuts have CAUSED (or at least substantially contribed to) the increases in revenues in recent years, and I also sought to explain why the conclusion of these economists is plausible (based on the algebra of the Laffer Curve at tax rates in the neighborhood of rates prior to the Bush cuts), and tried many, many times to explain to people that anecdotal observations of coincidence (particularly with very selectively chosen samples) is quite far from establishing causation, and that there are complexities involved that the guys with the Ph.D.s are better at sorting out. With a grand total of one exception out of around 25 - 30 persons reacting over several threadsI was met with charges of "lefty", "troll", and -- the least offensive, I guess -- "appealing to authority", sometimes with a checkmate-style tone referring to the supposedly fraudulent claims of most experts on climate change. On the latter, I pointed out (without getting into the climate change debate) that I understood that their rejection of the climate change expert consensus was based on suspicion of bias and/or an agenda, but that such could not be said about the conservative economists (including Bush's own) whom I had quoted. Almost invariably, nothing I could say on the subject would gain even consideration. To the contrary, they claimed I was either in denial (quite ironic), "appealing to authority", and/or that I was secretly a liberal seeking to undermine the conservative/Republican cause. To see some of the information I presented to them (quotes of economists, etc.), please see my blog at http://logicizer.townhall.com/g/f48d2bf3-1c51-4592-aa46-191f089d752f
and http://logicizer.townhall.com/g/c5ecb3cf-2712-4f5a-ad89-7ae03da99280 
(I don't know if the links will automatically go "live" here or if I need to use html. If the latter, I'll follow up with the links in another comment).
I was pleased (and a bit amused) to see that someone else has made this observation and was curious about its cause, because many times on RedState I felt like inquiring and speculating about it, but never did because I assumed it would be offensive and probably not productive. First, I should qualify my comments by repeating that I am not sure this tendency is more pronounced among conservatives or conservative bloggers than among those at the liberal end. Having said that, and presuming there is indeed this greater tendency among conservatives, here's my hypothesis: (1) This tendency exists mainly among religious SOCIAL conservatives rather than among secular, socially libertarian, economic/fiscal conservatives such as me, and (2) it stems from a faith orientation and from some of the conflicts between religious "truths" and science, perhaps beginning most notably in modern times with Scopes "Monkey Trial". This faith orientation and historical and ongoing conflict with experts (and knee-jerk rejection of expert consensus that conflicts with dearly-helf myths) carries over into economics and other areas. If the earth is under 10,000 years old and humans were created in their current form in the first week of the universe, then the experts are all wrong (well, except from some obscure contrarian "scientist" who has "proven" otherwise), and they are probably pursuing the same "liberal agenda" (or trying to secure their research funding or some other ulterior motive) when they make claims regarding climate change. Add to that if particular authority figures who are seen as "one of us" -- Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, etc. -- say something contrary to expert consensus (on climate change, tax cuts & revenues, etc.), and you've got a general truth-teller (albeit a non-expert on the particular issue) vs. a bunch of biased or disingenuous experts who are probably not good, God-fearing people like us.
I hope my hypothesis above is not offensive to anyone.
Of course, even among economic/fiscal conservatives who are not social conservatives, some reject the consensus expert view on the Bush tax cuts' net impact on revenues, but I assume that's just either run-of-the-mill cognitive dissonance (wanting to have their cake and eat it, too -- tax cuts AND higher revenues) or, in some cases, insincerity in pursuit of a policy objective (lower taxes).
As for liberals, I do see in the media and among friends, a tendency by some to reject expert consensus on some issues when that consensus conflicts with what they'd like to believe. For example, on international trade, some seem to reject or excessively discount what economists say about the benefits of trade and the harm of protectionism to most Americans.
Second try at the links in
Second try at the links in my above comment:
Economists on Bush Tax Cuts & Revenues
The Logic of the Laffer Curve
Thanks, and very good point
on the faith orientation. It makes a lot of sense that someone who sees a disconnect between science and faith in one area and reconciles it in favor of their religion might also distrust science in another area.
I hear you on RS. They can be a tough crowd, as I imagine dKos can be if you're more conservative than they'd like. I remember a conversation in their Redhot a while back where Adam C was trying to convince the rest of the editors that no, tax cuts don't automatically pay for themselves, but there are other reasons to support them. Your links are a great reference, nice work.
You would think that presenting experts who generally agree with conservatives but disagree on the issue in question would be convincing, but it's never worked for me either. Maybe because conservatives view it as cherry-picking and question the motivation of the liberal advancing that argument. I bet if Reagan stood up and said it himself in the middle of a larger speech the reaction would be different than when a liberal attempts to use a Reagan quote to support a point, to make up an example.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Thanks re: my blog (the
Thanks re: my blog (the links).
Re: your reference to Redhot conversation at RS, I don't know when the conversation to which you refer took place, but a week ago it happened (again?) after National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru spoke the truth about the consensus among economists on this point (and his agreement). Some RS contributors seemed dismayed. Notice the headline of the post that started the conversation! Who Lost Ponnuru?
It's like a shocked and deeply disappointed father crying out, "I HAVE NO SON!" Adam C and Dan McLaughlin tried to explain and convince the rest (the Kool-Aid drinkers) that what Ponnuru said was sensible. There weren't many, if any, signs that they were successful, with the possible exception of Pejman.
On protectionism
I agree that this is an area where liberals are more likely to discount the opinions of experts, although there are also some conservatives who support tariffs.
My defense of the liberal position would be that while free trade is likely to be mutually beneficial in the long term it could cost jobs in the short term, and there has to be some system in place to handle the transition. Probably encouraging retraining is better than putting off the inevitable with protectionist policies, though.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I agree with helping with
I agree with helping with transition for people dislocated by free trade. Of course, it's not always easy to distinguish who has lost his job due to foreign competition and I assume that programs to help can vary widely in efficiency, but in many cases we can have some idea, and in principle, I favor the idea of helping them adjust (unemployment benefits, training/education, etc.)
I favor a healthy dose of skepticism ---
I was just reading Pat Buchanan's latest column, which is right on target, and putting matters into perspective w/this global warming hysteria
"Like the panics of bygone eras, this one has the aspect of yet another re-enactment of the Big Con. The huckster arrives in town, tells all the rubes that disaster impends for them and their families, but says there may be one last chance they can be saved. But it will take a lot of money. And the folks should go about collecting it, right now.
This, it seems to me, is what the global-warming scare and scam are all about -- frightening Americans into transferring sovereignty, power and wealth to a global political elite that claims it alone understands the crisis and it alone can save us from impending disaster."
...
"Whether it's hunger, poverty or homelessness, in the end, the poor are always with us, but now we have something else always with us: scores of thousands of federal bureaucrats, and armies of academics to study the problem and assess the progress, with all their pay and benefits provided by our tax dollars. "
Yup!
Apocalypse Now?
Politics is a clash of interests masquerading as a clash of principles. – Anonymous
Well, that's certainly one possibility
Liberals could be salivating at the chance to impose big-government policies under the guise of preventing global warming.
But what if they're not? How much can it really hurt to begin sensibly transitioning from oil (which we have other reasons not to use) to alternative energy?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I'm all for alternative energy! Big Time!!
I really hate contributing to the Petro Thugs -- Putin, Chavez, Ahwhersmyjihads' etc -- coffers! We;re funding both sides of this terrorist war, which is insane, and BushCo's greatest failing, imo -- in a long list of failures!
but if this is really a 'crisis', then shoudn't everything be on the table, too? -- and that includes ANWR drilling, more offshore drilling, yes, even nuclear, though it's crazy expensive, cleaner? coal, etc., etc.
It's lalaland if we think solar & wind are gonna save us!
And a lot more should/could be done at the state level, of course, too -- but when you have liberals like Ted Kennedy blocking wind power, you see how difficult this really is!
Politics is a clash of interests masquerading as a clash of principles. – Anonymous
I tend to agree mostly
A lot of the "green energy" crowd just ignores the realities of their favorite energy sources. For instance, I was just arguing on another site with someone who said that nuclear "was not the answer" and then presented solar as the answer. But I found out that solar currently provides only 1/10,000th of our energy in the United States, and that production of solar panels is basically capped for the next 5-6 years until additional cpapcity to refine polysilicate comes online. So the truth is that we're already basically expanding solar capacity at the maximum possible, and the reality is that it will be decades before solar energy even makes a small dent in our total energy needs.
I'm also very much for agressive exploration and production of domestic energy reserves, including drilling in places where it is currently prohibited. I'm all for maxing out wind, solar, and even nuclear. We need it all, to get our unsustainable trade deficit down to manageable levels, and to create jobs domestically and pump up our tax base a bit.
I have not heard how Ted kennedy is blocking wind power. Could you provide a link?
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Here's one
such link
. You'd think that finding himself on the same side of an issue as both Stevens and Young would make Ted stop and reconsider...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Ah, I see
So Kennedy is not blocking "wind power" per se, but he has some NIMBY issues with one particular wind project.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
But Pat Buchanan is more of an expert than NASA scientists.
Oksana makes your point.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
read the piece; he's not offering himself any expert!
just putting matters into historical context and perspective, starting w/the Malthusian theory, wherein we all should be dead of starvation!
"Parson Malthus predicted mass starvation 250 years ago, as the population was growing geometrically, doubling each generation, while agricultural production was going arithmetically, by 2 percent or so a year. But today, with perhaps 1 percent of our population in full-time food production, we are the best-fed and fattest 300 million people on Earth"
human ingenuity and creativity and profit motivation! is a beautiful thing --
If we can get some mass production going, and make alternative energies cheaper! hello? this 'crisis' would solve itself!
But so far I hear more babbling from a Gore about 'morality' and Congress is of course all politics -- thank you ethanol! when we need economic solutions, imo
Politics is a clash of interests masquerading as a clash of principles. – Anonymous
Frankly, WalMart's done more for this 'crisis' than an Al Gore!
but the lefties would sooner choke, than give evil Wally's any credit!
though, in fairness, Gore did give Wally's prop, but it was downplayed
Politics is a clash of interests masquerading as a clash of principles. – Anonymous
Yes, Brendan but here's the wrinkle
We cannot orchestrate that change through via government mandate.
I know it sounds unsatisfying to feel like "we are not in control" or calculated control of the endeavor but it is nonetheless absolutely true.
We cannot flesh how the transition is to look. It won't work. The only the government can do is allow or encourage the speeding up of that transition by not working pro-actively to slow down the urgency of that transition.
Changes must come on their own through private enterrpise that responds to market signals and conditions.
You want less greenhouse gases from oil emissions?
Let or make pollution more expensive through the most economical means possible. PERIOD.
You want to spur innovation in alternative fuels and energy?
Let petroleum become more expensive. PERIOD.
No grandiose idea will change these two simple realities.
Well, there are steps we could take if we wanted to
Rather than wait for oil to become increasingly expensive as it becomes increasingly scarce, we could start taxing it to encourage investment in alternative energy. For example.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Sure.
Now see who wants to do the right thing and let pollution and gas consumption become less attractive financially.
As ideas swirl in your head, you start to see the real problem with politics being the power broker to get things done in fast and evolving world.
lol
As bloggers, we don't have to concern ourselves with practicality, John!
But yeah, there is that.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Swirling ideas
I think the liberal idea of government assisting market forces has been "swirling" around in people's heads for a while. Most democrats support selling of pollution rights, or taxation of high polluters, etc., as a way of curbing greenhouse gasses.
On the left, they are flanked by socialists, who want outright regulation of industry, the simple legislation of public sentiment. On the right, they are flanked by conservatives, who appear to think the best approach is letting the market alone to work its magic. Neither seem realistic, which is why I once again find myself voting in the middle, the (D) ticket.
Socialist and capitalist extremisms do more for ideologues than they do for the planet.
Socialisme ou Barbarie!
I think you're misreading
who supports what.
tradebale emissions, by anything I've read, is not the mainstream dem position.
Who supports what
Is not cap & trade a significant part of the environmental proposals of all three of the top-tier Democratic Presidential candidates? As far as I know, only Huckabee and McCain have supported the concept on the Republican side.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I dunno, Brendan
I think this works equally for both sides.
Besides, I think you mischaracterize their positions in the cases you show. Correct me if I'm wrong but:
Nobody denies Global Warming except a few kooks. Their stance, I believe, is that liberals exaggerate the implications beyond what is provable. Workable policies is another issues.
On Iraq, it's more muddled. I see the military with conflicting views within itself on a variety of issues. Then there are the experts in intelligence and world affairs. Again, conflicting.
On teachers, it's that there less likely to trust the quality public schools and are willing to home school. Very different from what you're saying.
A lot of these seem overblown to be. and overly stereo-typical. But you kinda knew that.
That's not to say I don't agree with some of you points.
Nuance is for losers!
Accepted on all points =)
As far as the larger picture, I wonder whether your economic focus makes you more likely to encounter liberals who distrust expertise than is typical of their actual numbers. No way to know, of course, but it's a thought. Another theory: you've spent more time than have I at dKos and so you're more familiar with some of the more (shall we say) intuitive rather than informed positions of liberals.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Perhaps.
It's just that I've internalized and empathized with so many common positions through my youth that the conservative and liberal stereotypes really strike me as less common than they are portrayed to be. People usually run to worst extreme and twisted examples to reinforce their opinions.
Not only that but I've also seen policies and bills get interpreted in totally different ways.
But, I never denied that their is culpability on your general point. There is. I just think it's overblown.
And economics, yes, is one huge area where liberals ignore and twist expert opinions....even from Democratic economists.
Agreed that it's probably a bit unfair to put this in one
camp or the other.
We've mentioned Bryan Kaplan's book, "The Myth of the Rational Voter" which highlighted common economic mistakes that people make despite near concensus from economists. Note: these weren't "We believe in free trade, but we're concerned about transition issues." These were, "We underestimate the value of free trade."....and if this is a systematic error as Kaplan posits, we of course, come up with sub-optimal policies.
Cafe Hayek had a nice write-up on how it can work among even the best professionals in a given field.
there is a reason to distrust
conclusions coming out of Academia and sometimes the Scientific community when the implications have very distinct political overtones. Couple of points...
I automatically do not trust anything from Academia on stuff with political implications because the Academia is overwhelmingly leftist. Very leftist. To the Left of the Democratic party. From NY Times
:
and
and
Now that alone would not make me distrust everything coming out of "Academia" but there is often a very clear agenda that is obvious to any conservative.
Next, for scientists, it is a bit different in that it is a scientific evidence is often valid and the question becomes whether it was presented in an objective and non-biased way. Scientists in overall have similar political views to the rest of the Academia and also are often dependent on grant money for continuing research. That does affect the objectivity of their findings. All that said I am often comfortable with scientific findings as most of them (outside of the Global Warming issue) are very important to humanity and done with a very high level of reliability and honesty.
Unfortunately Conservatives has a problem with the SoCon irrationality permeating the entire damn party. It spreads the distrust of even fundamental science in favor of extremely backwards view of the world. It even affects a lot of non-SoCon cultural conservatives who find the safety in irrational and beliefs rather than the rational and evidence. SoCons big government "conservatives" are a huge problem and are imo the main cause source for the GOP troubles (outside of Iraq).
Finally I will address the issue of "Generals" speaking out on Iraq. Most of the military people speaking out on Iraq are retired and lean Democrat. That's the only side that can be loud on the issue. The other side are the people involved in the conflict and they cannot speak out because it would not be right. So we are constantly getting the one side. Now I know Iraq is FUBAR and has been that way for a long time, but the pretense of using the few loudmouth morons instigated by Democrats does not make a convincing argument to me.
Thanks Brendan.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You know the motivations of the generals how?
What a steaming load. This from the same guy who defended Blackwater guards because many of them were former Special Forces and Navy Seals, and, therefore, were above reproach.
Yet without even the slightest thread of evidence, you claim that the generals who have spoken out on Iraq are doing so ONLY because they are Democrats.
What a load of sh**.
Maybe they actually care about the military, Ender, and they see the bottomless pit of Iraq as being destructive to their troops and the institutions of the military.
Unless you have proof to back up your inane assertions (which you rarely do), then this is just more of your typical ignorant bleating.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
nothing in Iraq
is destroying the "institutions of the military." You're overexaggerating.
[Edit] lol, my comment has been sanitized.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Have any proof on the political tendenceies of the many
... generals who have criticized this war?
Didn't think so.
Your consistent in your ignorance.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
-4
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
hehe
you really want those ratings eh :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
CLS Bloviation Requires Too Much Bandwidth
So I am just putting my own ratings system in place! :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Ender admitted he was just making sh** up, downthread.
He even apologized.
Of course, he blamed his own laziness on Brendan, typical of phony promoters of "personal responsibility." Like you.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Alright, let's all relax
and get some coffee...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I'm relaxed.
I'm laughing.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Not me
I'm tired of being relaxed.
qui tacet consentire
What does this have to do with the fact that you bloviate?
My comment was much more general than this thread.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
36
Your IQ is in decline.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
-4
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
But would they include negatives?
Or will this remain GoRight's special way of indicating approval? And what if CLC wants in on the fun?
I foresee a thread entirely consisting of ever decreasing numbers, down to negative infinity...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Who cares?
GoRight's inanity just shows what a joke a ratings system would be.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
ROFL
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
0
I have set my scale. I just view it as my way of keeping things easy. Obviously these have no real effect other than to express my level of agreement.
Besides, you gotta admit it was kinda funny! I even put my scale in my sig!
This is like ratings but with commentary (optional, of course)!
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I think your reponses containing only a number
... contribute much more to the board than your usual, long-winded, inane ramblings.
And I'm sure I'm not alone.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
0
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
-∞
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Don't be so hard on him! :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Decided to flex my negative rating muscles...
...kind of like exploding a nuke in the middle of the desert every so often, just to let everybody know you're not to be trifled with... it was nothing personal against Brendan :-)
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
-4
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
48
(That's your IQ.)
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
-4
(That's yours!)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
lol
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Rising costs of education ...
A tangent started by your mention of Academia.
I heard recently that the cost of a college education continues to rise faster than inflation. Given that payrolls are typically the largest portion of any enterprise's budget, this would suggest that the academics are soaking us for $$$$ every year, the greedy bast**ds. And this from a group which is most likely liberal and prone to railing against corporations raising prices (which in turn are used to cover pay increases for their workers, amongst other things).
Hmmm.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
college costs are skyrocketing because
the the role of the price mechanism is broken is this particular market....same as health care.
subsidies tend to do this to a market good.
The subsidies encourage demand without normal cost considerations.
This by itself is not a reason to say "no more student loans" but it is a reason to explore ways of encouraging the role of prices to affect a positive change.
Don't ever believe that higher prices in markets where the government heavily intervenes in the market process and the price mechanism is a coincidence.
College costs are skyrocketing due to a classic issue
... of capitalism: supply and demand.
This is the echo boom and a higher percentage of the population now attends college than during the original boom in the mid-to-late 1950s.
The demand for spots is higher than ever, particularly at top-level schools.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
No, CLC
you danced around my point. get passed the thin exterior and come inside.
Really?
Is the student loan program larger or smaller than it was 20 years ago? Is it more controlled by government or the private sector now than it was 20 years ago?
I hate to break this to you, John, but getting into a good school is much harder than it was 20 years ago. Schools like any of the Ivies, Middlebury, Washington University... most take just one in 10 applicants. It is much more competitive than it used to be. Demand has outstripped supply and that is what has led schools to be able to jack tuition rates.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
You, of course, fail to get his main point.
The demand that you speak of is created artificially through subsidies from the government in the form of grants and loans.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
No.
The demand is created by people having babies. In this case, it's the babies of the baby boomers. When the babies of the baby boomers become 17-year-olds, they want to go to college.
Northwestern University has an endowment of over $3 billion. And their tuition continues to soar. Because far more kids want to get into the school than they have places.
It's called supply and demand.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Augmented by artificial government subsidies.
Thus skewing the curve.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Nonsense.
How have government subsidies changed in the last 20 years?
The biggest drivers are:
1. A higher percentage of high school graduates wanting to attend college.
2. A bigger crop of high school graduates (the "echo boomers").
From USA Today
:
And guess what, it's not poor kids getting government subsidies who are pumping up the numbers. It is kids from families with money:
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Creative stats.
(1) The subsidies have gone up in the last 20 years even if there are no new programs. I know this because I know liberals. I won't waste my time looking up the stats for things like the Pell grant budgets year over year, that is left as an exercise for you.
(2) The number of college bound students has increased 21%, but has the proportion of those from the wealthy kept pace? I doubt it. The majority of those will be from lower income brackets who are now enabled by the subsidies.
(3) So only 1 in 17 of the poorest families makes it through college. What was that figure 20 years ago? 1 in 25? 1 in 50? Just because this figure is low doesn't mean that it hasn't improved.
Let me make it clear that I don't have a problem with the poor getting a helping hand in education. I think that's great. But that doesn't change the fact that the subsidies are driving up demand. That's just common sense, at least for anyone objective.
Subsidies represent an artifical lowering of the price for a commodity. Lowering the price artifically is generally accepted as being followed by a balancing rise in demand. That increased demand drives the price up to the point there the poor can't afford the education again. The net result will be higher prices overall and an increase in the ratio of poor to wealthy students (by virtue of the grants being needs based). This is just simple econ 101.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Pathetic.
You claim that subsidies have risen but you admit that you're too lazy to back it up with any proof whatsoever.
Okay. Reminds me of Ender's ignorant claim that retired generals who criticize Iraq are Democrats. He, too, didn't have any proof. Just idiotic bluster.
You and John are the ones claiming (as you do at the end of your post) that subsidies are driving up the cost of tuitions at rates above inflation.
Neither one of you has offered even a scintilla of evidence to support such a contention.
But don't let that stop you. Never does.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
0
Stop whining. You prove US (me actually) wrong.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree