Read the following article. What does the article suggest about the candidates economics knowledge? What are some examples cited in support of the analysis? Pick 2 or 3 examples and say why the candidate's economic thinking is flawed? Why would they say things that they may know to be based on unsound economic thinking.
17 Comments
Violet Elder
11/9/2011 08:50:47 am
The article claims that the candidates have less-than-elementary economics knowledge, and that not all of them would pass a college-level economics course. Some examples of the candidates' apparent lack of knowledge provided by the article include Michele Bachmann promising to return the gas prices to $2, Rick Perry aiming to "balance the budget with lower tax revenues," and the idea conceived by Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney of getting involved in a trade war with China. Bachmann's goal of lowering gas prices to $2 doesn't make sense because, as it's getting harder to get gas, the supply is shrinking, and the only reasonable response to shrinking supply would be the price of gas increasing. To decrease the price while supply is still low would result in a shortage. The idea of getting into a trade war with China is flawed because, as history has shown through the Great Depression, starting a trade war by passing new tariffs results in "no winners, only losers." The candidates make unreasonable and flawed claims about economic matters because of what they are - candidates. They feel willing to lie to citizens, who they seem to assume know even less about economics than they themselves appear to, in order to secure their vote. Tell an uneducated man that you can make the economy better again, using ideas and phrases he may not understand (and therefore won't know to be incorrect), just as long as he votes for you, and who is he to argue? The candidates make unreasonable claims and promises for no reason other than to secure the votes of the public, and most of the candidates likely, hopefully, realize that they can not follow through on their claims.
Reply
Roberto Rojas
11/10/2011 05:16:28 am
The article 2012 candidates slip on Econ 101 suggested that the candidates don't know much about economics. They have some ideas that are ridiculous. One of these ideas us presented by Michele Bachman "promised to bring back $2 gas." Other idea presented was the one by Tim Powlenty who "suggested sustained 5% GDP grown was a realistic target." Rick Perry said that he "would balane the budget with lower tax revenue." All these ideas presented by the 2012 candidates are impossible to meet, they are setting some unrealistic goals just to get elected. The candidates don't care if what they are saying is realistic; their only goal is to get elected. We need to be more educated than them and stay inform of what are their ideas to vote for the one who is better prepared.
Reply
maria gonzalez
11/10/2011 01:13:02 pm
What the article 2012 candidates slip on Econ 101 is suggesting about the candidates economic knowledge is that they are not taking in mind all the studies they have done.
Reply
MAGALI GARCIA
11/10/2011 03:39:47 pm
Chris Riley's article, "2012 Candidates slip on Econ 101," suggest what the title does, the Presidential candidates for 2012 don't necessarily know what they are talking about, as far as economics are concerned. Multiple college professors from some the most highly regarded colleges in the country have all concluded that the ideas proposed by the candidates would earn them failing grades in their Economics classes. Michele Bechmann, for example, promised to "bring back $2 gas." This proposition ignores the simple laws of supply and demand, not to mention that the price Americans pay at the pump is tied to the crude oil market, a global system far beyond Washington. Demand for oil continues to increase, while the supply is shrinking, Bechmann is making a promise that she could not keep. Also, Rick Santorum and Matt Romney introduced the brilliant idea of engaging in a trade war with China. As seen in the passed with the Great Depression a trade war is a terrible idea. Starting a trade war by passing high tariffs leads to reprisals, China would undoubtedly impose higher tariffs, simply creating a situation where "there are no winners, and losers."
Reply
Holle Depina
11/11/2011 11:14:24 am
The professors mentioned in the article "2012 Candidates slip on Econ 101," suggest that the candidates would not pass their economics class based on the ideas they propose. The candidates most likely do have a good knowledge about economics, however, the things they are promising may not follow the law of economics, but they still promise these things to help them get elected. From an economic point of view such things don’t make sense. The idea of waging a trade war with China shows that the candidates’ economic thinking is flawed because we have learned from the mistakes during the Great Depression. Another example of the candidates´ lack of knowledge provided by the articles is the promise made by Michele Bachmann to return the gas prices to $2, which does not follow the simple law of supply and demand. I agree with Magali that the demand for oil keeps increasing, while the supply is decreasing. This supports the argument that Michele Bachmann can not keep her promise of lowering gas prices. According to Nelson, President Obama’s green jobs initiative will fail because they shouldn’t concentrate on both a policy that aids job creation and a policy that creates more green energy. If they focus on doing both policies they will achieve neither of these two goals. It has been a long time since the candidates have taken an economics class. However, they do know that some of the things that they are promising are unrealistic but they say them anyways because their ultimate goal is to get elected.
Reply
Melanie Gouveia
11/13/2011 09:15:05 am
In the article, "2012 Candidates Slip on Econ 101" by Charles Riley, it is suggested that the candidates do not know how unrealistic their statements about saving people money in this economy are. Stephen Golub, a professor at Swarthmore College, states that "...some of the ideas floated by Presidential candidates would earn a failing grade in his class." Golub argues that the candidates are promising impossible ideas that appeal to society so that the people will vote for them in the upcoming election. Some examples of this would be Michele Bachmann promising to reduce gas prices to two dollars, Tim Pawlenty predicting a 5% GDP growth would occur with him as president, and Rick Perry would balance the budgets and taxes. I think the two most unrealistic statements are Bachmann's and Perrys. Bachmann's is flawed because the supply of oil is very low while the demand is extremely high, therefore gas prices can not drop to a low price of two dollars a gallon. The economy would just loose more money faster and dip dramatically. Perry's is flawed too because budgets and taxes could never be perfectly balanced due to the increase in prices of almost every object for sale and budget cuts. It is a continuing circle that can not be positively influenced. The reasons why the candidates say these appealing actions for the future is to attract followers so that they can earn their vote in the election. Their economic thinking is completely wrong, but the citizens think that their statements are true because they think that they know what their talking about and the candidates are intelligent. I think that in order for a candidate to be elected and successful, they need to speak the truth instead of feeding america lies that will eventually come back to them and ruin their reputation as president.
Reply
Jessie Leonard
11/16/2011 10:35:10 am
This article is suggesting that the 2012 presidential candidates do not understand even the basics of economics. The candidates have put forth some ideas that seem to prove this. For example Michele Bachmann promised to bring back $2 gas and Ron Paul wants to return to the gold standard. Erik Nelson, a economics professor, says, Bachmann’s promise of $2 gas is flawed by the basic laws of supply and demand. As for Ron Paul’s statement, another professor, Michael Salemi, says it is “‘ one of the most dangerous ideas put forward by a politician in recent years.’” These ridiculous statements were made not based on fact, but just to get as many votes as possible. This will do nothing but hurt our country because a dim witted president will be elected by making false promises.
Reply
Daniel Salzner
11/16/2011 10:44:08 am
In the article "2012 Candidates Slip on Econ 101" , the author Charles Ryley talks about the uneconomic decisions made by candidates just to win an election. There's no doubt they are smart folks but it probably has been a while since they refreshed their brains with some simple Econ knowledge. The author proves statement by providing examples such as a politician promising to bring back 2$ gas. This is completely absurd and most likely impossible to follow through on.
Reply
Austin Hechler
11/16/2011 12:41:33 pm
Charles Riley's "2012 candidates slip on Econ 101" suggests each politician tactics to aggrandize their popularity is economically unrealistic. Politicians are famous for their ideas and sayings to persuade the public they are the appropriate nominee but according to Riley very few ideas are accurate nevertheless realistic. Michele Bachmann promised the public gas prices descend back to $2 if she is elected. This idea is completely preposterous and irrational, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. The demand for gas is so high that companies must price the supply similarly. Tim Pawlenty suggested sustained 5% GDP growth was a realistic target. With the nations current GDP at $14.48 trillion 5% would be 700,000,000,000. Mr. Pawlenty would have to device a new market structure or produce some kind of necessity for the United States that the rest of the world would rely on. Rick Perry suggests he would balance the budget with lower tax revenues. Im sure his contenders would love to hear his plan to lower taxes keep the balance the budget. Although good ideas each congressmen and women seem to be living in a distant fantasy world. Swarthmore College's economics 101 professor Stephen Golub said "ideas floated by Presidential candidates would earn a failing grade in his class." Golub suggests nominees are blinded by popularity they will do anything to receive votes. Another professor, Michael Salemi, identified statements from six presidential candidates that "would earn failing grades in my Econ 101 class." Salemi calls Ron Paul's returning to the gold standard "one of the most dangerous ideas put forward by a politician in recent years." This is the most abstract and erroneous proposition yet. Gold is portable but people cant carry a huge stack like they can with dollar bills. Gold is also not very divisible and there is very much so a limited supply. Why would such well educated candidates who studied at schools such as University of Pennsylvania, Columbia, Texas A&M, Morehouse, Penn State and Emory be making such unreasonable ideas? Each candidate is blinded by the goal of becoming president and will do anything to win ignorant votes.
Reply
Lucas Immer
11/16/2011 01:00:29 pm
This article suggests that the 2012 presidential candidates' economic knowledge is below college freshman standards. For example, Michelle Bachmann's promise of a return to $2 dollar a gallon gas is way off base. The supply of oil is becoming ever more limited while demand stays as high as ever and the notion that such a price decrease is imminent appears to be absurd. In addition, candidates Rick Perry and Herman Cain have proposed unrealistic tax cuts. Our country already has a major debt crisis and the idea of somehow mitigating that problem while reducing tax revenue to such a great extent doesn't seem possible. Finally, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have proposed the idea of a trade war with China. China's economy is rapidly expanding but the idea of initiating tariffs is one that has never worked and will not in this day and age either. All too often politicians forget the failures of the Smoot-Hawley among other tariffs that led to the great depression. Personally, I believe that these politicians do understand the principles of economics. The problem is, they are more keen on creating attractive proposals in order to get elected. Thus, they say things they know aren't true in order to get votes. It is critical that we as individuals parse out truth from non in deciding who's policies to follow.
Reply
Maria Vittoria Gurrieri
11/16/2011 01:13:24 pm
the candidates economic knowledge is not enough to pass a test in the first year of college class; a professor who teaches at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Michael Salemi said: "candidates would earn failing grades in my Econ 101 class." Michele Bachmann, for example promised to bring back $2 gas; or Tim Pawlenty suggested sustained 5% GDP growth was a realistic target; while Rick Perry would balance the budget with lower tax revenues.The laws of supply and demand render Bachmann's $2 gas promise void and
Reply
Patty Lopez
11/16/2011 02:07:08 pm
This article explains the reasons why every candidate for the 2012 presidential election has absolutely no knowledge on basic economics. Their plans seem like good ideas to the average American, but these plans are unrealistic. They're basically lying to the public on order to receive votes. For example, with gas prices at $4/gallon, all people want to do is pay less. So Michele Bachmann proposed having gas prices lowered to $2. Given the situation of supply vs. demand, this is impossible- but people don't see that. Oil is is limited resource and there is so much demand for it that her plan is unrealistic. The only thing that could make this plan work is if everyone suddenly began driving Prius'. If they were built in the US, it would create jobs and would make people spend less on gas. They would then spend that extra cash on other consumer goods. Ron Paul proposed an alternative view in improving the economy which is returning to the gold standard. Although it would keep our country out of debt, it wouldn't allow us to build and improve the lives of the public. In case of an emergency, it would be difficult to find money to resolve the problem.
Reply
Adalberto Perez
11/17/2011 01:50:33 am
The article 2012 candidates slip on Econ 101 is suggesting about the candidates economics knowledge is that they are not taking in mind all the studies they have done. The candidates apparent lack of knowledge provided by the article include Michele Backmann promising Perry aiming to balance the budget with lower tax revenues. They are promising things that are impossible to deliver or make little sense. They are only thinking of trying to get them on their side so that they can win popularity but at the end they forget about all the promises they make
Reply
Emily O'Kelly
11/17/2011 09:13:09 am
Charles Riley ultimately suggests in his article "2012 candidates slip on Econ 101" that candidates for the 2012 election lack the basic knowledge of economics. Riley preaches that although these political leaders have attended some of the most prestigious colleges in the nation, ironically they can't seem to keep up with their basic knowledge of economics. He supports this claim by identifying specific examples from the candidates speeches. He pulls "grossly irresponsible" promises from these candidates addressal's, such as Michelle Bachmann's stipulation of 2$ gas or Tim Pawlenty's "realistic" target of 5% GDP growth, and counteracts them with back up from professors. These college and high school professors of economics comically add that the candidates would more than likely "earn a failing grade" in their economics class, proving again that an 'Econ 101' class should become mandatory for incoming presidents. Riley also adds that most, if not all, of these candidates stipulations derive from a desperate need of support from voters. Most citizens look at a candidates claim of, 2$ gas and become so infatuated with the idea of not burning a whole through their pocket to fuel their hummers and suburbans that they begin to support this candidate. Although these promises of a better future are marvelous, they are simply unreachable with todays economy. These improbabilities are over-looked by the general public and therefore fuel a candidates political campaign. Riley and econ professors nationwide ultimately conclude that in order for candidates to surpass 18-year-old economic students and begin making promises that are economically attainable, they must first take a refresher course on the subject that will potentially correct our nation: Economics.
Reply
Madi Oliver
11/17/2011 02:39:09 pm
The article is suggesting that while the candidates for this political campaign are all clearly educated, they are severely lacking in common knowledge of economics. Their plans and promises are appealing to voters but are simply unrealistic in today's world. For example, Ron Paul's idea of returning to the gold standard sounds like an effective way to reduce the risk of debt and the complexity of currency, but makes absolutely no sense in modern times. This would mean the government would not be able to finance any projects that are so desperately needed to raise our economy and create jobs. Another extremely flawed idea is Michele Bachmann's promise to bring gas prices back down to $2... is this a joke? First of all, being the president does not give you the power to magically decide what a product will sell for, the market does that. Secondly, unless three-fourths of the population decides to follow Mr. L in riding their bikes, or an extremely large amount of oil is discovered, gas prices will not decrease as significantly as Ms. Bachmann predicts by simple way of economics. With the current supply of accessible oil on earth, the price has to fluctuate in accordance with the rate of demand in order for the market to be at equilibrium as it should be. While the political concepts that Charles Riley addresses in his article are tempting, they are unfortunately impractical when further questioned. Either these candidates have completely forgotten their economics 101 course or they are hoping their unintelligent statements will reel in supporters.
Reply
Nick Harris
11/17/2011 03:32:18 pm
This article discusses the presidential candidates' sophomoric presentation of basic economics. It may not be that the candidates are truly lacking knowledge regarding economics, but are simply presenting economic ideas to the people that have a shimmering silver lining, but may not in any way be a possible remedy for the economic crisis. These ideas are proposed solely for the voters, the ideas act as motivation to vote for the respective candidate even though these ideas will never be put into action due to their absurdity. Examples that support this theory exist in the article itself; Michele Bachmann proposed the idea of $2 gas prices. This would simply be impossible, it is true that the economy would be stimulated with a steep rise in gas sales; but to dig up, ship, and sell the gas for only $2 would be preposterous due to out dwindling oil supplies conflicting with the rise in demand. Ron Paul’s proposal of returning to the gold standard remains as a risky idea that could have huge repercussions. The gold standard was put out of use because it made it nearly impossible to create emergency funds when needed. These ideas are brought up exclusively as a carrot on a stick for the voters, when they hear that the economy will be better under the control of this candidate or that candidate they will immediately jump on the bandwagon, regardless of the irrationality presented in these proposals.
Reply
Kenji Gutierrez
11/18/2011 12:55:04 am
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
April 2014
Categories |