Take the Test: What Economics Type Are You?
The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation offers a brief test that allegedly tells you what economics type you are. You can be pigeonholed as an innovation economist (Joseph Schumpeter), supply sider (Art Laffer), a liberal neo-classical economist (Robert Rubin), or a neo-Keynesian (needless to say, John Maynard Keynes). According to the test, I'm a moderate supply-sider, but there doesn't seem to be all that much difference between them and the liberal neo-classical types. Most of the people who've taken the test buy into Rubinomics.
The ITIF wants to push "innovation economics" which apparently means that private/public partnerships are just peachy:
In contrast, "innovation economics" recognizes the reality that a global, knowledge-based economy requires a new approach to national economic policy based less on capital accumulation, budget surpluses, or social spending and more on smart support for the building blocks of private sector growth and innovation.
Rather than focus on ensuring that prices accurately reflect costs to drive what conventional economists call allocative efficiency, innovation economists argue that the lion's share of economic growth is determined by productivity and innovation.
I would like to suggest that the folks at the ITIF need to read and reflect on Friedrich Hayek's brilliant essay, "The Use of Knowledge in Society."
For what it's worth, take the test here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Ugh. That test is awful. I stopped taking it after about the third question, wherein all of the questions assumed that I had some kind of Magical-Jesus Economics Wand that could make stuff all better.
Oh, and I liked how I could NOT choose to implement "lower taxes and fiscal discipline", because those don't go hand-in-hand or anything.
Supply Side Economics (Moderate)
Oh, and I liked how I could NOT choose to implement "lower taxes and fiscal discipline", because those don't go hand-in-hand or anything.
I chose "fiscal discipline" on that one, being as it is the more difficult *political* bugaboo.
"No discernible philosophy"
Does that mean I don't know what I'm talking about?
Rubinomics (Strong). I was disappointed there wasn't more focus on information flow and decision making, both by consumers and companies.
As a mother and a grandmother, I do everything for The Children?.
What does that make me?
based less on capital accumulation, budget surpluses, or social spending and more on smart support for the building blocks of private sector growth and innovation.
Is it just my imagination, or does that translate as "industrial policy"?
"Free market" does not seem to be an economic type.
? | August 12, 2008, 11:57am | #
"Free market" does not seem to be an economic type.
That's because it is a religion.
hint: freer, freer...
or social spending and more on smart support for the building blocks of private sector growth and innovation.
I find those who tend to use 'smart' to describe policy prescriptions are dumber than a chipped brick, and tend to still wear those retro 70's collar skirts that went out of fashion again nine years ago.
As a mother and a grandmother, I do everything for The Children?.
What does that make me?
A mother and a grandmother.
Supply Side Economics (Moderate)
Although some questions contradicted themselves, or should have been "check all that apply."
The worst example was having to choose between lowering taxes and being "fiscally responsible." These things should be one in the same. I agree with the supply side folk who say lower taxes CAN increase revenues, but the conditions have to be right... i.e. it's no guarantee that this will happen.
The only way to be certain the outcomes will be beneficial is if we cut spending (being fiscally responsible) AND lower taxes. If we do the latter without the former, it's like spending lots of money based on the fact you just bought a lotto ticket and you know, this time around, you're going to hit it big.
Anyway, point being, I reject the narrowness of this quiz, like any other online quiz, despite it being made by economists.
(Insert obligatory Klien-esqe dig on economists and reason magazine here)
I love the smell of Hayek in the morning.
Smells like... victory.
Strong Innovation. Not Keynes.
Free or not free. There is no try. (Or something like that.)
Your dominant economic type: Supply Side Economics (Moderate).
whoop-de-doo....
Supply Side Economics (Moderate).
Moderate?
Rubinomics (Moderate).
At least the Keynesians are outnumbered.
Nancy Pelosi | August 12, 2008, 11:53am | #
As a mother and a grandmother, I do everything for The Children?.
What does that make me?
Meddling bitch. Why do you ask?
I agree that the worst question was the choice between lower taxes and fiscal discipline.
Overall the questions were too vague (exactly how would policy "drive increases in savings"? By letting people keep their own money and decide on their own what to do with it, or via some meddling, Hillary-esque program?).
I was a supply sider, FWIW.
A better test from the Mises Institute.
The test reflects the socialist biases of its creators. Examples: questions 6, 7 and 8.
Moderate Supply Sider. That's kind of offensive. I've never been moderately anything.
Wonder how Schumpeter would feel about being attached to public-private partnerships. I'm not terribly familiar with him, but it doesn't sound like his game.
ITIF looks like a Democratic outfit to me: http://www.itif.org/?s=staff
Meddling bitch. Why do you ask?
I'm on vacation and I'm bored.
And I lost my vibrator.
Supply Side (Strong) for whatever knowing what I scored is worth.
I agree with Angry Optimist's "Magical Jesus" analogy. The test seemed biased toward bureaucratic tinkering of the economy as the only way to produce good results.
Oh, and agree with TAO about the early questions but it got a little better later. Also, where was my low taxes AND fiscal disciple choice? I could do both.
I chose lower taxes but it was a tough choice. I later chose 50/50 on the "tax cuts or pay off debt" question.
Some of the questions had "neutral" for an answer, which I took as "neither," but I assume they meant "either."
Strong Rubinomics.
I need a drink.
Gotta love how "Austrian" is not on the list. I got supply side even though I answsered nuetral to the government inducing savings, as that is also a distortion. But some distortions are more equal than others in this "we're all Keynseians now" world.
What about adjective-less neoclassical or just free market?
The whole test was goofy - to discuss things like 'have a strong savings rate, either private savings or budget surpluses' is just ridiculous.
You could easily have significant budget surpluses by raising taxes 200%. Would that be sensible? Don't be ridiculous.
I'd love to know what the political axe that this organization is grinding. In space, no one knows you're just a website.
"You could easily have significant budget surpluses by raising taxes 200%."
Not if raising taxes that much plunged us in a major recession.
"I'm on vacation and I'm bored.
And I lost my vibrator."
Maybe, Nancy, you should call Whoopi and have a three-way with your husband and her. I heard her make that proposition to you on "The View."
Gotta love how "Austrian" is not on the list.
That's cuz them Austrians are just crazy.
Ask any economist, they'll tell ya.
A better test from the Mises Institute.
Thanks for the linkage, Nigel Watt.
That one was better. I especially liked their hilarious socialist options (the answer to everything included the words "exploitation," "workers," or something to the effect of "capitalism hurts my feelings").
They mighta been a little hard on the Chicago School, though.
It's apparent that the test creators are firmly in the "we must do something" school of thought. I don't think there were any set of answers that could lead to one being labeled a Friedmanian.
Get government OUT of economics. Lower taxes, spend only what is taken in, no bonds, and the only encouragement should be toward prosecuting fraud and prosecuting forced takings.
Free markets rule! GO FRIEDMAN, RAH!
I coulnd't get through the test either. I kept wanting to answer "none of the above".
p.s. Schumpeter is an Austrian, so they are represented.
I later chose 50/50 on the "tax cuts or pay off debt" question.
One of the many asinine, biased questions on the test. The federal government doesn't HAVE a spare $10B. They perennially run a deficit, with brief bursts of non-deficits after a tax increase before the spending ramps up again.
The first question was a whopper -- it assumed that you can have either efficient allocation of stuff or productivity, but not both. Hello? If you have the first, you get the second. Policies that cause inefficient allocation of stuff hurt productivity.
with brief bursts of non-deficits after a tax increase before the spending ramps up again.
Not in the last 50 years.
@economist watcher
But since economics is the dismal science, crazy starts to sound a lot better 🙂
My favorite economic work (the use of knowledge in society) mentioned on Hit and Run!
Jerry,
Economics is dismal, crazy dismal, but I am not sure it qualifies as science yet.
My take on the lower taxes vs. fiscal responsibility is that you can lower taxes and not gain any financial discipline; just run a higher debt. Therefore fiscal responsibility is better because fiscal responsibility will lead to lower taxes.
I had a problem with one of the questions
Yes it can. It can encourage productivity in the private sector by staying out of it, but I'm sure that's not what the answer, "strongly disagree," implies.
Anyway, I got "Supply Side Economics (Moderate)." Probably bordering on Runbinomics. Pretty bad quiz if you ask me. Categories should be more like, "Chicago," "Keynesian," "Supply-Side," "Progressive," etc.