So What DO You Know About Economics?

[Anniee]

Are you an Austrian?

This quiz reveals what, if any, economic school you've been taught (or even indoctrinated into, in the case of at least one "school.") It is an education in itself, as well.

See where your answers fall, which school you fall into, and learn about the others as you go. My bet is most fall somewhere between Keynesian and Socialist; though a few might be somewhat Chicagoan. I had 24 out of 25 Austrian and one Chicagoan.

But a comparison of results would be very illuminating, I think, especially in political discussions. It gives a firm base to knowing where your fellow posters are coming from.

http://www.mises.org/quiz.asp?QuizID=4

[Anniee]

And please don't take the abbreviated version; I know it's a bit time-consuming but there are only 25 questions.

[castille]

What I know about economics:

Time + Determination + Clear thinking = More money into my pocket.

[Anniee]

Sigh. Well that is largely true. Doesn't have much to do with the topic, but I can't argue with it either.

[Anniee]

Guess we have our answer

[bishop]

i didn't have the energy to complete your quiz, sorry.. i'll get around to it eventually though, thanks for bumping this thread.

my thoughts of economics have evolved as i've continued to learn. i'm not sure if there's a name for my set of general beliefs.

economics has a clear scientific element and a "liberal studies" element.. the two constantly interact, so understanding the way that occurs is just as vital as understanding the hard numbers. i've found that if you conduct case studies on individual country experiences, you'll start to see lots of similarities - and the similarities include "liberal study" items such as politics as well as clear macroeconomic numerical trends.

and just one more note about the science of it... nash equilibrium frequently occurs and if the model's correctly constructed, it can be used to predict future scenarios.

[donkrabbit]

"Your score is: 94 / 100."

I strayed from the Austrian stance on the "proper method to conduct research in economic science", the "interest rate", and the "causes of the business cycle" questions- all of which I selected the Chicago School answers.

[RickSp]

91.

Austrian with Chicagoan influences.

[RickSp]

When taking the test, I found myself wondering two things:

1. Can the Mises folks possibly be any more tedious? Notwithstanding agreeing with most of their points, I suspect the answer is "no."

2. Can one be both an Austrian and a Bush supporter? I do not have an answer to that one.

I do marvel at the irony that it was Democrat who said that "the era of big government is over", reformed welfare and balanced the budget, while a Republican president spends like a drunken sailor and has madly expanded both government powers and the deficit.

Then again, the best rapper may be a white guy, the best golfer may be a black guy and the Germans are lobbying for peaceful foreign relations.

[Anniee]

I personally don't find it tedious, but quite absorbing. JMO of course.

Bishop; I hope you do get around to it. As far as the Nash theory, it is useful for computer game programs; economically? Not so much. http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=937 Hopefully I can find some of the other pieces I've read on this, because I hate for it to appear (falsely) that I have nothing but Mises here. Not that there's anything wrong with Mises of course.

Donkrabbit; that's really cool. The one I got the Chicagoan answer for was interest rates heh. Anyway, I'm thrilled that the first results posted went in such a positive direction.

Rick SP, no classical liberal approves of George Bush's spending. He never pretended to be for smaller gov't or less spending, unfortunately. Still, tax-and-spend is so sure to plummet us into a sorely depressed economy that even deficit spending is slightly preferable (though naturally a Bad Thing.) Some of the spending seems to be an attempt to "reach across the aisle" (NCLB Education Act) but I question his judgment in continually trying to appease the left that way, if that's (as I believe) a large part of the motivation.

However, as far as "The Era of Big Gov't Is Over," if you can point to a single administration that has genuinely reduced the power, scope and/or spending of the government in our lifetimes, I'll publically campaign for Turd Sandwich come next election. ALL of them, no matter the rhetoric, increase the size, scope (power) and spending of the federal gov't. As much as the Mises institute is complaining about the deficit spending (rightly so) tax cuts ARE a powerful thing. If only they were cut substantially, it could go a long way towards reducing deficit spending, even in this bloated (as all administrations are bloated) budget.

[Samildanach]

Got half way through and thought I can't be bothered reading this rubbish any longer.....sure its all economic theory which is interesting, however they could have stated each viewpoint in one sentence per question instead of ten. Each explanation of viewpoint is a gross overcomplication of simple concepts.

[RickSp]

Rick SP, no classical liberal approves of George Bush's spending. He never pretended to be for smaller gov't or less spending, unfortunately. Still, tax-and-spend is so sure to plummet us into a sorely depressed economy that even deficit spending is slightly preferable (though naturally a Bad Thing.) Some of the spending seems to be an attempt to "reach across the aisle" (NCLB Education Act) but I question his judgment in continually trying to appease the left that way, if that's (as I believe) a large part of the motivation. However, as far as "The Era of Big Gov't Is Over," if you can point to a single administration that has genuinely reduced the power, scope and/or spending of the government in our lifetimes, I'll publically campaign for Turd Sandwich come next election. ALL of them, no matter the rhetoric, increase the size, scope (power) and spending of the federal gov't. As much as the Mises institute is complaining about the deficit spending (rightly so) tax cuts ARE a powerful thing. If only they were cut substantially, it could go a long way towards reducing deficit spending, even in this bloated (as all administrations are bloated) budget.

As much as I sincerely loathed Bill Clinton, he did, if imperfectly, support freer trade, lower tarrifs, and fiscal responsibility. King George imposed tariffs on steel - one of the stupidest possible economic moves as it raised the material costs to all American manufacturers using steel. Bush's tax cuts are just deferred taxes. The deficits they genereate will burden future generations as well as penalizing current borrowers with higher interest rates in the near future. The falling dollar will only accelerate this trend.

Claims that tax cuts will lower deficits by accelerating economic growth ala the infamous "Laffer curve" are, as another Bush so accurately represented, just "vodoo economics". Like most offers of something for nothing, we all end up with our pockets picked.

[bishop]

amen rick...

Bishop; I hope you do get around to it. As far as the Nash theory, it is useful for computer game programs; economically? Not so much. http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=937 Hopefully I can find some of the other pieces I've read on this, because I hate for it to appear (falsely) that I have nothing but Mises here. Not that there's anything wrong with Mises of course.

good article.. nash equilibrium is rarely pareto efficient, however it does represent a normal ending point that interactions tend to produce. for instance, if you have two firms negotiating with each other, each wants to begin the negotiation by promoting their own optimal scenario - you always start out high and bring it lower through negotiation. under nash equilibrium, the decision would end up being the one that's mutually beneficial - the best choice given the competitor's best choice. because nash equilibrium naturally occurs, it's become an integral part of business negotiations (which is formulated using microeconomics), and is used in economic transactions. anytime win-win situations occur, that's an example of nash equilibrium.

[donkrabbit]

Quote by: Samildanach Got half way through and thought I can't be bothered reading this rubbish any longer.....sure its all economic theory which is interesting, however they could have stated each viewpoint in one sentence per question instead of ten. Each explanation of viewpoint is a gross overcomplication of simple concepts.

Ironic. The socialist who I asked to take the quiz last night complained that the socialist answer options weren't in-depth enough, and left key factors out.

When I was taking the test, I found that for each question I could quickly dismiss at least two answer options right away by reading only a sentence or two. That made it go by much quicker than if I read out each answer entirely.

[Capitalist Pig]

I got 90 / 100. I had 5 Chicago answers, the rest were Austrian.

Quote by: donkrabbit When I was taking the test, I found that for each question I could quickly dismiss at least two answer options right away by reading only a sentence or two. That made it go by much quicker than if I read out each answer entirely.

Same.

[bishop]

45/100

4 socialist answers, 6 keynes answers, 5 austrian, 9 chicago.


i've never been one to ascribe to any individual dogma/belief system.. they all have their good and bad points - and i prefer to pick and choose and consequentially come up with my own economic philosophy/theory.

[Osborn F Enready]

Annie said:
This quiz reveals what, if any, economic school you've been taught (or even indoctrinated into, in the case of at least one "school.") It is an education in itself, as well.

See where your answers fall, which school you fall into, and learn about the others as you go. My bet is most fall somewhere between Keynesian and Socialist; though a few might be somewhat Chicagoan. I had 24 out of 25 Austrian and one Chicagoan.

But a comparison of results would be very illuminating, I think, especially in political discussions. It gives a firm base to knowing where your fellow posters are coming from.

I say:
Sounds like a nice way to say your searching for a label for those who disagree with your line of thinking, but never the less, I took part.

According to Mises,

I answered 75/100, and I had no socialist answers, this is all I can remember from the review.
I was going to cut and paste the e-mailed version of the results, but it had no message body, just a title and address with no results listed.

[Capitalist Pig]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I was going to cut and paste the e-mailed version of the results, but it had no message body, just a title and address with no results listed.

Odd, did you open it with notepad, or did your computer select something else? I had no problem viewing the e-mail results with notepad.

[Anniee]

Bill, the Laffer curve has NOTHING to do with what I said. The Laffer curve postulates how the government might take in more $$ when taxes are cut; it is a gross oversimplification and it isn't verifiable. Yes, gov't often takes in more dollars after a hefty tax cut, especially since the economy booms (almost always) when it's done. However the Laffer curve fails to take the moral issue of confiscatory taxes and tells us that below a certain point tax revenue will decrease - thus making tax cuts extremely finite; and it might STILL be 48% of one's income. Not a good model at all. Please don't ascribe it to me.

My point is that tax cuts DO indeed spur the economy; bigger cuts tend to spur huge growth. Smaller cuts tend to spur smaller growth. Taxes not having been cut since the early 80s, the GDP, the Dept. of Commerce and Dept of Labor reports show the largest boom in the ensuing 20 years. This, once again, has absolutely nothing to do with the Laffer curve. I'm not interested in those flawed hypotheses.

At any rate; how you can imagine your pockets picked by a tax cut, when it not only propels the economy but also puts a few individual dollars in individual pockets, is beyond me. There is some kind of flawed understanding going on, but I'm not sure where it is.

[Osborn F Enready]

Capitalist Pig said: Odd, did you open it with notepad, or did your computer select something else? I had no problem viewing the e-mail results with notepad.

I say: I received a e-mail titled "Mises Quiz Results". The sender was the "Ludwig von Mises Institute". I opened the e-mail as I would any other e-mail, in Yahoo.

There was a subject bar, and an address line, but no message body AT ALL. This leads me to believe it may be an error on their end, since I have had no other e-mail probelms recently. If there was an attachment, I would have used an appropriate or recommended viewer, but there was no attachment or message body to select to "view".

I am perplexed.