"A survey of academic economists by The Economist finds the majority — at times by overwhelming margins — believe Mr Obama has the superior economic plan, a firmer grasp of economics and will appoint better economic advisers."

Thnx to alert reader AP for the link.

Comments

[Spag]

What Ed doesn't tell you about the survey:

"Our survey is not, by any means, a scientific poll of all economists. We e-mailed a questionnaire to 683 research associates, all we could track down, of the National Bureau of Economic Research, America’s premier association of applied academic economists, though the NBER itself played no role in the survey. A total of 142 responded, of whom 46% identified themselves as Democrats, 10% as Republicans and 44% as neither. This skewed party breakdown may reflect academia’s Democratic tilt, or possibly Democrats’ greater propensity to respond. Still, even if we exclude respondents with a party identification, Mr Obama retains a strong edge—though the McCain campaign should be buoyed by the fact that 530 economists have signed a statement endorsing his plans."

[Anthony]

Luckily, you could find out that information simply by clicking on the link Ed provided and, you know, reading the article.

[Spag]

Yes, but why didn't that bit make it into Ed's headline? Kind of misleading, don't you think?

[Anthony]

There are lots of parts of the article that didn't make it into the headline. In fact, I feel pretty comfortable, without actually doing a word count, mind you, that the vast majority of the article did not make it into Ed's headline.

If Ed was giving an analysis of the article and survey, I would agree that he probably should have mentioned something about that part. But he's not analyzing, he's just summarizing and pointing people to it.

I do agree that details and methodology are important considerations to weigh in evaluating the information, which presumably is why Ed included a link to the article, and why it's important to click through on links rather than thinking that a two dozen word summary contains - or should contain - all the relevant details.

[Beelzebubba]

What Spag and Ed both don't tell you: To win an election a candidate needs to know NOTHING about military affairs, economics, geography, spelling or history. He needs to be an expert in one thing only: winning elections. This person must he must be an illusionist, an actor and a most believable liar. Because he's an expert at only winning elections, the people he surrounds himself with appear to have the brains of a toad. The president, lacking knowledge of Fed policy, finance, MOAB's or turf management, must hire someone whose qualifications are 1. They impress him 2.They have impressed someone close to someone who is close to the office. Next, these advisors must be competent in three categories: 1. Currying favor 2.Licking boots 3. Creating the illusion of competence. Bootlickery, brown-nosery and buttkissery give us advisors and followers who bobble their heads when a country is attacked and invaded which did not attack the US. The same bobbleheads appear when the illusionists declare that the only real support of the US, the savers and taxpayers, must be looted and coerced because evil doers on Wall St have financial weapons of mass destruction. Mission accomplished one more time.

[RBM]

@Beezlebubba,

Do you think this political system (charade)can go on indefinitely ?

Do you see anything on the horizon that can/will/might blow up this system ?

[Beelzebubba]

RBM:no/yes....your inquiry makes me hopeful.

[Beelzebubba]

the system works like this..one group promises to redistribute the spoils of the rich and industrious, the other group promises to subjugate the poor...."who can argue with that?"~Mel Brooks