Since we all seem to be taking this "poll" seriously, let's break it down.
We also asked the respondents about their political leanings: progressive/very liberal; liberal; moderate; conservative; very conservative; and libertarian.
Right here we're off to a bad start. Did they administer a test to categorize the participants into political groups? It sure doesn't sound like it from the sub header of "Self-identified." Such a quiz, while most likely unable to accurately portray political feelings, would at least give a standard for the labels.
The system used here though, is completely trivial. Political leanings are dependent a number of non-economic issues. Asking respondents about their "economic leanings" would have helped accuracy. Even then though, feelings on economic policy are not a linear spectrum, and the labels given as choices can mean any number of things to anyone.
Rather than focusing on whether respondents answered a question correctly, we instead looked at whether they answered incorrectly. A response was counted as incorrect only if it was flatly unenlightened.
What the hell does "flatly unenlightened" even mean? According to who? When? Where?
And then there are the actual questions:
Consider one of the economic propositions in the December 2008 poll: "Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable.
Basic economics acknowledges that whatever redeeming features a restriction may have, it increases the cost of production and exchange, making goods and services less affordable. There may be exceptions to the general case, but they would be atypical.
Restrictions? What? Did you mean building codes? Standards? Regulations? Words that are actually used when talking about the government passing laws on housing?
Word play aside, what is included in their definition of Restrictions? Not building on unstable ground? Not using lead paint? Making the ceiling a certain height? I fail to see how any of the demands an increase in cost. Perhaps zoning issues could force a developer to develop more expensive land, and of course there are other issues as well. Fact is though, the question is poorly worded and thus misleading.
A better thing to ask would be "Do government mandated quality standards increase cost?"
Therefore, we counted as incorrect responses of "somewhat disagree" and "strongly disagree." This treatment gives leeway for those who think the question is ambiguous or half right and half wrong. They would likely answer "not sure," which we do not count as incorrect.
If this was their grading standard, then the answers should have been limited to "yes," "no" and "not sure."
Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree).
This is a history question. It has nothing to say on a person's understanding of economics.
3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree).
This question might be legitimate if "leads" was changed to "contributes."
5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree).
I'm gonna skip past the the fact that this is not an economics question and is completely subjective to opinions on things like the definition of "exploited" and simply ask: What planet are they living on?
6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree).
Would the right answer be that it completely eliminates unemployment? Ridiculous question.
7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree).
No, Minimum Wage just binds companies to spend more on salaries. It says nothing about how they have to deal with this new budget factor. Firing some people is simply a typical response, as is raising prices or cutting other costs.
These questions are either misleading, irrelevant or woefully over simplistic - sometimes all 3.
Take the logic of the minimum wage question and apply it to a health care topic. It could asked, "Does a single payer system increase taxes?" They'd say that since such a system requires the government to spend more, it would necessarily have to tax more to make up for it. The reality is that such a scenario is grossly over simplified and ignores not only other factors but other options, such as not paying to jet "terror suspects" to third world dictatorships and torture them. But of course, for answering "no, it does not raise taxes," I would be labeled "flatly unenlightened." Charming.
The terminology used in this article is dripping with bias and self-righteousness. "Enlightened?" Was I asleep when Jesus came back and gave the secrets of economic success to libertarians?
Realizing that many of our leaders and their constituents are economically unenlightened sheds light on the troubles that surround us.
Translation: "The people I disagree with are idiots and cause all the problems. If people like me ran things the world would be perfect."
Finally, the Headline and picture have literally nothing to do with the topic, study or article. 5th graders aren't mentioned once. It's simply there to hint that the intelligence of these "liberals," who are "flunking" economics is below that of a 5th grader's.
