You answered 31 out of 33 correctly — 93.94 %
What I got wrong
Considering I'm not an American and live on the other side of the globe, that's pretty fucking awful.
You answered 31 out of 33 correctly — 93.94 %
What I got wrong
Considering I'm not an American and live on the other side of the globe, that's pretty fucking awful.
31 outta 33. I am disappointed because my old man is a history teacher, and I should have known this crap.
But I missed 19 because WTF was the monkey trials? and 13 because I don't have morals so naturally I'd get that wrong.
Originally Posted by ozzy
So who are these people that completely bombed the test? Did the test administrators try to pick out idiots to take their quiz. Most of the questions were really easy.
50% of people are below average intelligence. Trufax
lol, well played.
54.55 fuk yea
Wow that you believe that.
As with most things (especially in statistics), if it sounds too bad to be true, then it probably is.
I ended up getting a 75 point whatever percent score. Though this question is bullshit:
30) Which of the following fiscal policy combinations would a government most likely follow to stimulate economic activity when the economy is in a severe recession?
A. increasing both taxes and spending
B. increasing taxes and decreasing spending
C. decreasing taxes and increasing spending
D. decreasing both taxes and spending
What would the government most likely do? Well they sure as hell aren't ever going to decrease spending with democrats in office (or republicans the way they are now). As far as increasing or decreasing taxes it's all based on who has the most power. If democrats do then it's not hard to imagine them raising taxes for the rich and lowering them for everyone else, which makes two of these answers equally correct. If republicans do then I can see them possibly lowering taxes, but they have begun to get so ridiculous lately that even that's not necessarily too likely.
A lot of the quiz tests whether or not someone knows nearly-useless information. Some of them I happened to remember and others I didn't. One example is that I got the Sputnik one right, but how the hell is that at all relevant to anything that is worth knowing?
Space race, motherfucker.
This kind of thing just gives americans a chance to sound intelligent (lol) and everyone else a chance to be condescending.
I, surprisingly, didn't do that well.
I'm talking about the idiots who took the test. Not elected officials in general.
I got all the questions dealing with American History right but bombed those fucking Economics questions.
I think micro and macroeconomics should be a general ed in college. It is amazing what people don't know.
I completely agree.
PANDAS
If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.
I think philosophy should be a general ed in college. It is amazing what people can't reason about.
It is. At least at our school, it can be Macro/Micro specific or a survey of both.
But you're not American (I don't think). International standards are different.
You mean like "considerations of economics in the abstract (vacuum of space) are meaningless without reference to the specific realities of a given set of politics and spatial reference?"
Or do you mean we feed them a steady diet of game theory and neoliberal economic theory that seems to be serving us oh-so-well now?
Periods of slow down and periods of recession are common in generally accepted economic theory because everything is cyclical. I swear, a few bad months and people thing that the system is broken and that all economic theory is wrong. This happens every 6 to 8 years, just most of the time average people don't notice because the media doesn't cram it down their throats. Granted, this slow down is worse than most previous, but if everyone would just calm the fuck down, not buy in to the sensationalism by reducing consumption, and wait 6 months to a year things will go back to the way they were before.
Right now things are only actually bad for people who want to buy houses and cars and for unskilled laborers. I don't know why everyone thinks that they are not only personally affected but also that it is the worst thing to ever happen ever.
Dude, if Thomas Friedman is going so far as to say we're fucked, we're fucked. Everyone thinks that we're fucked largely based on the wild fluctuations of the market, the disparity between LIBOR and interest rates, and massive international investment in commodities that are likely to be near-worthless. Given that this pattern matches both the shift to Keynesianism as well as the shift to neoliberalism and their corresponding economic crises that triggered the transition, historical analysis backs up the belief of both impending doom and a shift in economic policy as spurred by crisis. A freeze on credit doesn't just affect those who buy houses and cars -- they also affect the rate Americans pay on their credit cards (linked to LIBOR), the rate at which businesses receive loans (and for small businesses, loans are what regulate things like payday), whether or not college loans are available, whether or not globalized transport of goods is even feasible.
You haven't seen a % drop like this since The Great Depression -- the S&L crisis is a joke in comparison. And unfortunately, the international market is tied into the derivatives on our fucked up housing market, which means we're all going to hell together.
www.marketwatch.com
Shit, that ain't even a liberal rag. Fuck, read The Economist -- they're full of doom and gloom too. I hardly consider only one other (arguably) comparable occurrence in our history "cyclical". We dumped $350 billion of liquidity into the banking sector and it didn't do jack shit. Do you recognize the impact of that?
This is an economic slow down/potential recession just like any other one, it is just worse. I didn't infer catastrophic slow downs/potential recessions were cyclical, I just inferred slow downs/potential recessions were. The big secret is, even if this does by some terrible series of events become a new Great Depression, that's not the end of the world. The world survived the first one, and now the world is a much smaller place which will make it a lot easier for the world to get together and fix it if things come to that.
In conclusion, we don't really have anything to worry about. Also, I was only talking about individuals with my statements, not companies. Also, you do realize that things in economics take time right? Did you think giving the banking sector a bunch of money was going to fix things over night?
Yeah, people only lived miserable lives and fell victim to hunger, poverty, and homelessness at unprecedented rates. We shouldn't ever make an attempt to avoid that again because the world, as a whole, survived. I won't even offer argument regarding whether or not our world will continue to survive the onslaught of CO2 emissions caused by an excessively consumptive/productive economy.
I find it laughable that you claim "this is just like any other slow down...just worse." Losing an arm is just like any other injury, just worse. The atom bomb is just like any other aerially deployed weapon, just worse. Winning the lottery is just like getting any other money, only better. Since when did reduction to the absurd qualify as sound reason?
And yes, the dumping of liquid cash funds into the market was supposed to have an immediate affect on the London interbank offered rate and the ability/desire of banks to loan money to one another. That's the intended purpose of an infusion of liquidity during a credit freeze.
You're making a claim that everything's going to be all right when every other piece of evidence points to a large majority of Americans suffering for the next 3-5 years (at least). Your claim is baseless, save for "economics are cyclical," and only in the same way that a Budweiser is the same as a Doghead 120 Minute IPA. I really don't think you know what you're talking about, I'm afraid.
To most people working with organic solvents, IPA means isopropanol, so seeing that acronym used in reference to an alcoholic beverage is rather lol.
But anyways Ollie, the one thing that my paltry edjumucation in economics has taught me is that a free market is not synonymous with a completely and totally laissez-faire market with 0 regulation. It also has taught me that free market theory relies on a number of conditions that may or may not be realized in a real laissez-faire market. That much information has been invaluable to me.
PANDAS
If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.
Those involved with beer recognize India Pale Ale. <3 beer.
And yes, I know no market is truly free. I'm not sure where I gave you the impression that I thought that, but no -- neoliberal policies have created an decidedly un-free market that favors business over individuals. Free market is rhetoric. That doesn't stop economic theory from behaving as though it operates in a rational vacuum.
I know plenty well what I'm talking about, I'm just debating lazy because to disagree with you in a well written and well supported post would take much more time and effort than I am willing to give to it. Hopefully Atmosfear will come in and do it for me, because he and I see eye to eye on these things.
ollie you are operating without the underlying assumption that many of us are content to let people lie in the beds they've made. If an uneducated (or worse, educated) idiot defaults on his mortgage because he didn't read the fine print, didn't have a job, and bought a house out of his price range, many of us are absolutely content to see him suffer until the economy picks up. The educated, experienced, intelligent members of society will survive just fine the way we are supposed to. Economic downturn drives more efficient business practices and culls the week from the market. Only the firms that have sound practices will weather the storm and stand to turn profit when it resolves.
The idea that the economy should be consistent, fluctuation-free, and never at risk of losing money is silly. We have seen downturns, even crises, before and the market will adjust. The early 1930s were some of the most profitable years on Wall Street.
What scares me is that these cash infusions are effectively rewarding moral hazard. The government has failed (as usual) to consider the negative externalities of its policies and is now rewarding irresponsible business practices and failures. There should be punishment to insurance organizations who circumvented rules and failed to uphold their contractual agreements in relation to these securities, not financial assistance. The banks themselves should be demanding greater accountability from their mortgage brokers. The government can encourage these practices, but it shouldn't be financing (or even mandating) them.
This new shift to offering bailouts for consumer credit firms is absolutely fucking outrageous. The philosophy of offering credit at outrageous rates to people who don't deserve credit at all is simply stupid. If the government should take any action here, it should cap the maximum interest rate possible on consumer credit loans. If your credit is too low to qualify at that maximum interest rate, you shouldn't qualify for a loan. I don't think it's a best-case for the government to mandate it, but if you want to unfreeze the market in the immediate future, a punishment, not a reward, is the best solution. Take credit out of the hands of the people who can't afford it, and force them to live within their means. You can't fucking reward the people who are irresponsible with the money or the firms that are capitalizing on them.
And just to wax philosophical, Warren Buffett has two core beliefs that apply very well here. First, he has always said to beware of complex offerings, be they financial, technological, or industrial. When the investor can't be sure of the product or company he is investing in, he ought to stay away. He specifically warned investors against what he called "complex financial offerings" such as mortgage-backed securities which became so convoluted that it was nearly impossible for an investor to determine in which basket his eggs lie.
Secondly, he said that when others are taking risks, be fearful, and when others are fearful, take risks. The downturn is an opportunity for strong business practices to win out. As the market turns up, there is incentive for more firms to enter. As the market turns down, there is incentive for firms to leave. Berkshire has done a good job of making its money on the front-end and not trying to play the market on the back-end. Those are the firms that remain in a downturn and those are the firms that should remain in a downturn.
You answered 31 out of 33 correctly — 93.94 %
Spoiler
I was amused how easy it was to answer some of these questions based on the biased language; it was easy to guess which answers they wanted to hear.
Real answers:
International trade and specialization most often lead to which of the following?
A. an increase in a nation’s productivity
B. a decrease in a nation’s economic growth in the long term
C. an increase in a nation’s import tariffs
D. a decrease in a nation’s standard of living
Wide gap in theory vs practice here. If you want to know about standards of living for central/south american, african, and south-east asian countries after "free-trade" intervention from the World Bank and IMF, then D is the correct answer.
27) Free markets typically secure more economic prosperity than government’s centralized planning because:
A. the price system utilizes more local knowledge of means and ends
B. markets rely upon coercion, whereas government relies upon voluntary compliance with the law
C. more tax revenue can be generated from free enterprise
D. property rights and contracts are best enforced by the market system
E. government planners are too cautious in spending taxpayers’ money
Stupid, loaded question to which I don't accept the basic premise. None of the answers are correct, anyway, although B is least far from the truth.
25) Free enterprise or capitalism exists insofar as:
A. experts managing the nation’s commerce are appointed by elected officials
B. individual citizens create, exchange, and control goods and resources
C. charity, philanthropy, and volunteering decrease
D. demand and supply are decided through majority vote
E. government implements policies that favor businesses over consumers
The correct answer to this question is E.
Last edited by nine castles; 11-26-2008 at 12:44 AM.
for 29:
B and D are not the same thing.
B. a resident can benefit from it without directly paying for it
D. insurance companies cannot afford to replace all houses after a flood
A public good has two characteristics: non-rival and non-excludable. While neither answer addresses these two directly, B is the correct answer because it addresses the non-excludability of a public good. You can't reasonably prevent people from benefiting from a levee (you can only build your house in a levee-protected area if you pay this fee to build it?), while the insurance company's ability to cover its risks is irrelevant to non-rivalness or non-excludability. There are plenty of situations where an insurance company cannot cover its debts, but that doesn't make them public goods (for example, if a company faced 5,000 wrongful termination suits, their insurance company could not cover the legal fees, but the company is no greater a public good than my sole proprietorship.)
It's a good economics question because it demands the proper definition of a public good as well as how to apply it. Other examples of public goods include parks, fisheries, wildlife reserves, etc.
Atmosfear is like an avenging angel who comes to earth (specific internet threads) whenever a misinformed liberal need smiting.
Yeah I'm a sore loser on this one.
Lame quiz anyway.
Looking forward to your mad dog frothings in response to the post after it.
Who are the liberals in this thread? I don't see any.
Is it mad dog frothing whenever you get called out for not knowing anything because you seem to be causing a lot of it this evening?
Indeed, ain't no one here but us "historical materialists".
And fuck your ignorant bullshit for making me have to call myself that in order to get funding.
I'm coming back for you when I'm less drunk, Atmos.
p.s. that survey was so fucking biased in language that it would have flunked a 300-level methods course.
Fuck, I wish we lived in a world where you had to call yourself a historical materialist to get funding in academia
No, the most correct answer is A. D is conditional.
No, the answer is D. You may not accept that free markets lead to greater economic prosperity than central planning systems, but they clearly do.
No, the answer to that question is B. E is an oxymoronic statement because policies that favor businesses lead to lower prices which lead to greater consumer surplus.25) Free enterprise or capitalism exists insofar as:
A. experts managing the nation’s commerce are appointed by elected officials
B. individual citizens create, exchange, and control goods and resources
C. charity, philanthropy, and volunteering decrease
D. demand and supply are decided through majority vote
E. government implements policies that favor businesses over consumers
The correct answer to this question is E.
Also, you at least are a liberal because you show a clear bias towards central planning. I made ollie a liberal in my head to make my statement more universal because Atmosfear does this all the time. He may actually not be, but I'd almost guarantee it, and if not then I'll eat my hat. Also sycld.
International trade question:
The key word was "long term" which is perfectly true, though I won't disagree that the IMF and World Bank do a shitty job of tailoring their requirements to the needs of a developing nation (which is a sterling example of how the free market could provide better allocative efficiency)
#25: The question is asking for a definition of capitalism/free market, so B is the only correct answer. It's such a fine line that I won't even argue that E isn't true; it's just not the answer to the question.
#27: A isn't perfectly worded, but it is the closest to truth and it addresses the allocative inefficiency of centralized planning caused by the in-practice difficulty of attaining suitable information. Theoretically, if every stakeholder in the market had perfect information, it wouldn't matter which system you used because all would be capable of allocative efficiency. Hasn't worked that way in the real world, unfortunately.
works better than "marxist"
A is "conditional" on it actually being the case. Which it isn't, if you don't own stock in Exxon, DuPont, or United Fruit.
That isn't even the correct answer according to your stuck-in-1786 conservative loverboys who wrote this thing. Property rights and contracts are enforced by the government not the market. Pull your head out of your ass.
You watch Fox News a lot, don't you?
You really haven't a clue what liberal means, at all.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks