r/benshapiro • u/OkBuyer1271 • Sep 24 '24
Professors and “experts” clearly have a political bias Discussion/Debate
8
u/TylerTurtle25 Sep 25 '24
Time for some of that “diversity” in colleges. Where did all the conservatives go? Oh that’s right, Dems fired them or forced them out
23
5
u/Enerith Sep 25 '24
Also interesting that red skews higher with the utility of the study.
1
u/NegligentNincompoop Oct 13 '24
Still doesn't cross 50%... cope
1
u/Enerith Oct 22 '24
Doesn't mean much, the inference is that there's a liberal construct in higher education that creates strong bias (like blue collar union workers, left-wing stereotypes would suggest they are right wing voters, but they vote blue because of their union bias), and I was just suggesting that people that provide more value to society appear to exhibit more constructive reasoning and break away from the standard.
1
u/NegligentNincompoop Oct 22 '24
Or, contrary to that, I would argue that people who have studied more history and philosophy are better educated about politics and tend to make more informed choices. I don't know, but I guess my reasoning is backed on my belief that left wing politics are more pragmatic and your reasoning is backed on your belief that right wing politics are more pragmatic, so as long as we have different political beliefs, we're probably going to look at this graph differently.
1
u/Enerith Oct 23 '24
Agreed! I suppose we would both have real world observations as well then. Mine come from watching left-wing politics at play. I'm live in CA, where we are taxed amongst the highest in the US, and those taxes go to immigration and homelessness aid programs (some of which go unaccounted for), and then the state imposes additional taxes for infrastructure because they spent all of the money that was supposed to cover that on keeping the bottom-feeders content. I had a very left-wing person ask me why I think homelessness is so bad in CA the other day while standing in line for something, and it was a pretty simple answer... "because the state pays them for it."
20
u/dr-chimm-richalds Sep 24 '24
Those that can, do. Those that can’t, teach.
5
u/mattyice18 Sep 24 '24
Said that to a professor in college that used Howard Zinn as the textbook. It didn’t go over well.
1
7
u/Right_Hand_of_Amal Conservative Sep 24 '24
I can't think of any good reason they would be so heavily biased towards Democrat. Especially economists...
Maybe it's just where the survey was taken but that seems incredibly bizarre to me.
7
u/manoffreedom Sep 25 '24
Democrats will talk theory all day but when it comes to practice the majority are pretty bad at it. So they go into teaching. They extol the virtues of communism but when it’s put into practice it has failed every single time.
1
u/D10CL3T1AN Sep 29 '24
Democrats are not, have never been, and probably never will be communists. You are a dishonest propagandist.
1
u/NegligentNincompoop Oct 13 '24
Do you really believe Democrats, "extol the virtues of communism"??? Please tell me you're joking.
3
u/derechtelmarotter Facts don’t care about your feelings Sep 25 '24
this has to be satire...
9
u/Right_Hand_of_Amal Conservative Sep 25 '24
Why? As an economic analyst, I genuinely would never consider voting for a Democrat, they generally have no concept of economics, and this is especially true with Kamala. Her only economic plan right now is continuing to hyperinflate the economy by stimulating people with more money. It's a horrendously stupid plan that shows she hasn't learned anything in her almost 4 years as VP and all the spending bills she broke.
Not much of a surprise when you remember her father was a Marxist economist.
2
u/Realityiswack Sep 25 '24
The hijacking of mainstream economics by the left over the course of the last century has done innumerable damage. Most people have no clue as to the laws and functions of economics as a result, that society can be what we “feel” it’s supposed to be; which is far from the truth. The left will lead us straight into CBDCs and the population will think it’s a good thing, because of some egalitarian bullshit, probably.
1
u/OffensiveWeapon Oct 29 '24
I remember sitting in a Econ 101 (Macro Econ) class of about 100. And one student raised his hand and asked, "How do we know you aren't full of shit"
I've applied that reasoning to every economic prediction I've ever seen. And if it isn't evident I ignore it.
1
u/D10CL3T1AN Sep 29 '24
A vast majority of economists agree that tariffs are bad for the economy, so there is absolutely a reason for them to support Kamala and oppose Trump. I highly doubt you're an economic analyst since you didn't even take this basic fact into account.
1
u/Right_Hand_of_Amal Conservative Sep 29 '24
Most economists also agree that having the government give money to people for no reason is a really bad strategy. Most economists agree that investing in one of the most fiscally beneficial resources in the world, energy, is a great idea. Most economists agree that doing tie breaking votes on over 40 proposals that have increased government spending to the point that we're wasting 1 trillion dollars every 90 days is a bad idea. Also funding foreign wars to the tune of hundreds of billions against your constituents will is widely considered a bad idea. Why do you all think Comrade Kamala is a even remotely reasonable choice for the economy?
1
u/D10CL3T1AN Sep 29 '24 edited Sep 29 '24
Most economists also agree that having the government give money to people for no reason is a really bad strategy.
Where is Kamala proposing giving money to people for literally no reason? This sounds like UBI to me, which Democrats don't support. Are you perhaps referring to stimulus payments, which Trump also supported and passed? Even if Kamala is supporting this policy, is she supporting it to the extent it would be worse than 20% tariffs?
Most economists agree that investing in one of the most fiscally beneficial resources in the world, energy, is a great idea.
The US is producing more oil right now than any country in history all while investing in renewable energies to further increase energy independence and combat climate change, something that would also have major negative effects on the economy.
Most economists agree that doing tie breaking votes on over 40 proposals that have increased government spending to the point that we're wasting 1 trillion dollars every 90 days is a bad idea.
Yet Donald Trump increased the deficit in one term almost as much as Obama did in two terms, so this complaint doesn't check out either.
Also funding foreign wars to the tune of hundreds of billions against your constituents will is widely considered a bad idea.
Doesn't Ben Shapiro also support funding Ukraine? Also, Trump has no problems with funding a foreign country to the tunes of billions and billions of dollars as long as it's a certain country in the Middle East that starts with an I and ends with an L.
Why do you all think Comrade Kamala is a even remotely reasonable choice for the economy?
Because unlike you I'm not a partisan hack with double standards falsely identifying as an "economic analyst". I have also heard economic doomsaying about every Democratic presidential candidate and it never came to pass.
1
u/Space_Sweetness Oct 14 '24
Record oil production in the US under Biden
Record-Breaking Accomplishments On Jobs And Unemployment Under Biden
Overall violent crime and homicides are down during Joe Biden’s presidency,
Do fiscal conservative economists like this?
The national debt has risen by almost $7.8 trillion during Trump's time in office
1
u/NegligentNincompoop Oct 13 '24
Maybe because economists see that government intervention in the economy isn't always a bad thing and that the economy generally performs better under democrats.
1
u/tgc1601 Sep 25 '24
Maybe Trump's ludicrous 20% tariff on everything and the even more ludicrous claim that it won't be inflationary has turned a lot of economists off the Republican party, among many other of his brain farts.
3
u/Right_Hand_of_Amal Conservative Sep 25 '24
Tariffs are expenses levied against foreign products. This is a strong armed way to balance the economy by shock. Essentially, this will mean that to export products to the US the foreign countries will be paying a minimum of 20% of that products value. While that will increase the cost of those products, it'll balance itself by Americans just... not buying them. Why pay at least 20% more for a product when you can get American made products significantly cheaper. It'll bring businesses back to America because the cost of production will be excessive, therefore creating more jobs, and reducing unemployment.
It would, at worst be temporarily inflationary. By stating this plan out loud and publicly enacting the plan any business owner who is utilizing cheap foreign labor to turn a profit should realize the consequences and come back. Otherwise their largest market, American consumers, will stop utilizing their products and their businesses will fail.
If you have a genuine economic argument against this, I'd be interested to hear it. This does seem like a really simple and effective plan imo.
5
u/tgc1601 Sep 25 '24 edited Sep 25 '24
Your response triggered me way too much. It utterly ignores over 200 years of economic thinking. Tariffs have been tried and routinely fail, which is why economists (especially conservative economists) don't like them.
If the USA imports products, it is because they come from a country that can more efficiently produce said product, is of higher quality, or is a mixture of both. The USA DOES NOT have a comparative advantage in everything, nor could it. Tariffs are an artificial way of creating a comparative advantage. So by applying a tariff on everything you're pricing out of the USA market, products that would otherwise be cheaper to obtain than the USA-made equivalent - the price difference between what the consumer would have otherwise paid on the imported goods pre-tariff from that of the more expensively produced US good represents inflation for that good. There is no getting around this well-established fact.
It is impossible for any country to have a comparative advantage over everything. Tariffs rob wealth from one consumer to pay a less efficient industry, and the net effect is fewer goods available for the economy overall.
What are you going to do about food during the winter months? The US imports a lot of agricultural produce when it's unable to produce enough of its own because of the winter season. Will you still slug 20% on those imports when there is no choice but to import? LOL. Utter stupidity.
Your employment argument sucks, too - increasing employment in otherwise inefficient industries represents a waste of resources. The only employment worth increasing is in industries where a nation has advantages and can compete globally. It returns to the fundamental economic problem - limited resources with unlimited needs.
It would, at worst be temporarily inflationary. By stating this plan out loud and publicly enacting the plan any business owner who is utilizing cheap foreign labor to turn a profit should realize the consequences and come back.
So it's only temporarily inflationary because you're swapping out cheap labour for more expensive labour, that makes zero sense. Labour costs are a huge driver for product costs, your quote above explains precisely why it is inflationary lol
3
u/Right_Hand_of_Amal Conservative Sep 25 '24
This is a really bad globalist argument. The idea that because other countries are able to produce a product more efficiently means that we shouldn't be producing at all in our country is asinine. What is happening is companies that produce things that can be made in the US, like cars, clothing, and a myriad of other products, are going to foreign countries to pay laborers less, increasing their profits so they can send it back to the US with a massive surcharge.
No one is saying the US has a total comparative advantage, and there is no imposition on every product. The tariffs will be over many products but not everything, which if you don't read the policy and only read headlines, I wouldn't suppose you'd know.
Taking competition and jobs that could easily be maintained in the US away for cheaper labor is not only unethical but does far more harm to the middle and lower classes who are losing job opportunities. Your supposition is that companies are doing this magnanimously or just because they can produce better products and charge less for them, but that's not reality, my friend.
What we need in America is people working, especially if we are going to simultaneously combat mass illegal immigration. Your argument is muh resources and muh big businesses are actually good, but that ignores that we easily produce enough of many kinds of resources to maintain American demands for most products. We outsource production for a number of reasons, including maintaining trade relations, but we have a system being abused, and it's negatively affecting the people here.
Also funny how you want to insult my economic understanding when it's kind of my job. I'm sure you took a class in high school and maybe listened to a couple of pro-globalist people talk about the wonders of international trading, but don't miss the forest for the trees, bud.
2
u/tgc1601 Sep 25 '24
This is a really bad globalist argument. The idea that because other countries are able to produce a product more efficiently means that we shouldn't be producing at all in our country is asinine.
I didn't say the USA shouldn't be producing anything that it does not have a comparative advantage in, some things it must do irrespective of national security, food security etc etc BUT I am explaining the fundamentals to specifically call you out on your bullshit statement that it is not inflationary. A blanket 20% tariff on everything IS going to be inflationary to say otherwise is a lie or ignorant. This was Trump's brain fart announcement - if it turns out to be not on everything that's because wiser people convinced him otherwise.
Why are you bringing 'mass illegal immigration' into this discussion? Stick to the topic - Tariffs and the effect on an economy.
Saying something is 'kind of my job' is not an argument.
1
u/Right_Hand_of_Amal Conservative Sep 25 '24
I didn't say it isn't inflationary at all, I said it would be, at worst, temporarily inflationary. I add doubt in that I don't think that most businesses would maintain to work in foreign countries because of the increased expenses and/or that Americans would continue to buy the products with the increased cost. Trump also didn't say he'd impose blanket tariffs on all products, he said he'd impose tariffs on manufacturing. You're roping in all other kinds of products which are not manufactured, like food.
Illegal immigration greatly affects the job markets, he wants to reduce the number of illegal immigrants both coming into the country and that are already here, but as we've seen historically a great many of them have jobs. The jobs going to them are consequently not going to Americans, while we are facing a massive issue of unemployment. These issues are intrinsically linked because bringing businesses back in would increase the number of jobs for Americans, creating more opportunities that we don't have while they're out producing products in second and third world countries for cheap.
I work as an economic analyst and am paid for my knowledge about the economy, markets, and other things. I also do some teaching on the side, mostly for fun. Your comments, which imply that I don't know what I'm talking about, are ad hominem and incorrect.
2
u/frisbm3 Sep 26 '24
I may have missed it but it looked like you both left off the worst part of tariffs--retaliation. If we tariff, they will tariff our goods. This becomes every country has a protectionist 20% tariff and trade just became way less efficient. Where there were comparative advantages of 2% to trade, now it has to be 22%. So effectively everything is more than 20% more expensive and the government gets the balance to waste.
If we could somehow fuck other countries by having one way tariffs, that would be good for us. But I've never seen that happen.
1
u/Right_Hand_of_Amal Conservative Sep 26 '24
It's a non-issue. Given the existence of the petro-dollar establishing the US dollar as the standard world currency and the moves to make us a net producer of oil, it's unlikely that there would be severe retaliation by countries that are dependent on us.
1
u/frisbm3 Sep 26 '24
The severe retaliation is just them putting balancing tariffs on their goods. And you're wrong if you think nobody would do that. https://www.trade.gov/feature-article/foreign-retaliations-timeline
1
1
u/tgc1601 Sep 26 '24
I didn't say it isn't inflationary at all, I said it would be, at worst, temporarily inflationary.
I am going to pull you up on this spurious remark.
Inflation is cumulative, so when it hits (even temporarily), it stays in the absence of deflation. Take a baseline year pre-tariffs of 0% p.a. Inflation, then a 'temporary' inflation hike of 10% p.a. For only year 2, followed by a return to 'ordinary' inflation levels of, say, 3%. The result from the baseline is not 3% but 13.3% because it's cumulative. That's a 13.3% total loss in purchasing power.
Absent the economic policy that created the spike (e.g., 20% tariffs) and just ordinary inflation of 3% in year 2, the cumulative inflation would only be 6.09% in year 3 (compared to the 13.3% in year 3 above). That's a big difference, and it was all caused by 'temporary inflation'.
You claim to be an economic analyst, but I don't buy it. If you are, you haven't grasped the fundamentals of inflation. This way, you should never argue from an alleged authority; your argument should stand independently without the need to flash your unprovable credentials.
This all started because of your dismay that so many economists are not supporting the Republican party. The answer is that a great majority of economists don't buy into Trump's (and, by extension, the Republican party's) protectionist economic views.
0
u/Right_Hand_of_Amal Conservative Sep 26 '24
This is the weakest argument you've made so far. Inflation is persistent only assuming there isn't deflation, which there always is. When I say that, I don't mean that we don't have times where the annual inflation is constantly positive, but that there are market highs and lows. The idea that a temporary increase in inflation wouldn't be balanced by a return to internal production is 2D at best.
This is also coming alongside an inevitable recession. Anyone who has ever watched markets for even a short time can see the massive inflation over the last seven years is hitting a precipice, and these ideas of tariffs and all are going to angle the fall so we don't hit the floor so fast.
By far the worst part about this claim, though, is the implication that any Democrat has a single economic policy that isn't significantly worse and would not lead to a very real and very persistent hyperinflation. Kamal Harris' idea is to inject a ton of money into people's pockets while maintaining all of our current government spending on products like oil. Trump's plan is to redirect efforts into energy production internally, which will be a massive economic boon.
As far as bringing up my occupation goes, I only did so because you made the assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about, not for some credentialist reason. Your grasp of economics does not seem validated by any real study of trends or history, but a surface level understanding, which, credit where it's due, is far greater than most people's.
1
u/tgc1601 Sep 26 '24
Holy moly - the ‘economic analyst’ said ‘there is always deflation’ 😂. You need a severe recession to get deflation, and a since dropping the gold standard you’ll need a bloody severe one. To say there is ‘always deflation’ is a wild claim.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation#/media/File%3AUS_Historical_Inflation_Ancient.svg
Look at how much deflation the USA has had since the 50s, you almost need a microscope to spot it. I am shocked you even thought of this counter without first checking out whether or not your deflation claim is realistic.
I am so done with this - it’s like arguing with a parrot. The irony that in 2024 we now have conservatives arguing for broad tarifs on a Ben Shapiro sub reddit, no less, is astounding.
https://youtu.be/gbFvF7kiOv4?si=vQwPMW4_A1CFlT7M Shapiro is spot on here.
1
0
u/whynot-phil Sep 26 '24
Are you really an economic analyst? Because you argument indicates you have the understanding of an econ freshman...
1
u/Right_Hand_of_Amal Conservative Sep 26 '24
It's an argument based on the actual analysis of trends and the explained as simply as possible. Anyone who wants to argue economics should at least understand one of the most fundamental rules of markets: people tend not to buy things that are unnecessarily or excessively expensive. This is bad for companies that are utilizing what is essentially a trade loophole to make larger profits off of cheaper labor as their consumer base won't want their products at an increased cost.
I'm beginning to think that everyone here is either a Mises school follower or don't know what their talking about in a way where they can genuinely argue the points. The idea that was proposed by Baron Von Mises that people always buy things intentionally and will, therefore, go out of their way to buy specific products, which is proven incorrect all the time. From normal market adjustment to competition to the addition of totally new products we constantly see that consumers tend to value their money more than specific producers, and they only go out of their way if there is a slight difference in cost.
The inevitable backlash of levied tariffs, as I've stated previously, is the return of businesses to the US, where they can actually reach their market without having to pay new, significant costs.
1
u/whynot-phil Sep 26 '24
There is no empirical evidence for your theory and all credible economists agree that tariffs don't boost local sales. Tariffs only lead to eventual retaliatory tariffs, which essentially hurts trade and therefor the economy. Please finish your undergrad...
7
4
u/Tori-Chambers Sep 25 '24
Someone's got to do something about all those republicans in engineering.
2
2
1
1
u/coverallfiller Sep 24 '24
Those who can- do Those who can't - teach And those that can't teach - administrate
1
-7
u/spartan117UNSC117 Sep 24 '24
Fuck trump
2
u/Ben2St1d_5022 Sep 24 '24
Trump said fook you too my dude. He also said keep buying the lefty lies and propaganda. You were ignorance well.
Directly from Trump and all 🤷🏻♂️😘
1
u/derechtelmarotter Facts don’t care about your feelings Sep 25 '24
a few months ago bennyboi and this sub was so against trump and now, after proving he still has that party by the balls, you gobble his
-5
u/Cnacious Sep 24 '24
So higher-educated people are mostly Democrats and that makes them bad for democracy. Got it.
0
u/Ben2St1d_5022 Sep 24 '24
Actually this claim is a myth. It in fact is about 50/50, with a slight edge going Democrat which is to be expected since most large metropolitan areas are heavy blue, yet, in rural areas conservative or red and not college educated but more trade schools and apprenticeships, also, the majority of trade school and apprenticeships earn more than over 70% of those college educated so it’s kind of a flawed measuring stick. Simple state to state studies shows that up north the statistic favors democrats and in the majority of States in the South the statistic favors Republicans. Pretty much like the rest of the demographics of left and right wingers throughout the States.
-6
Sep 24 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/ToadsUp Sep 24 '24
Education and intelligence are most definitely not the same thing. At least not anymore. Especially since many schools have started ignoring test scores and grades altogether 🤦♀️
6
u/Ben2St1d_5022 Sep 24 '24
It’s more like indoctrinated now a day. Definitely not educated. I hold several degrees as I’m a physician and talking to these younger higher educated generations baffles me in regards to their stupidity and also their blind loyalty to a party who continues to lie cheat and steal from them.
-5
Sep 24 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/ToadsUp Sep 24 '24
Yeah, it’s the republican party that’s politically grooming kids at high rates within the college educational system. For sure
1
u/Ben2St1d_5022 Sep 24 '24
You’re ignorant of you think that’s true
1
u/ToadsUp Sep 24 '24
Well that’s your opinion ✌️
1
u/Ben2St1d_5022 Sep 24 '24
No, pretty much a fact. I mean with 20 years of data to back it all up. But I forget you lefties only use data when it drives your narrative and reject all the rest of truth and data when it doesn’t.
Mass form psychosis is a mofo
0
u/ToadsUp Sep 24 '24
Dude… you thought my comment was serious? I was being sarcastic 🤦♀️ Goodness gracious. I am NOT on the left 🤣.
I was actually being sarcastic because I see the grooming happening with leftist groups on college campuses.
I do believe every political movement targets kids, but again, some (as in the left) more than others.
I guess I need to start putting /s after my comments. I thought that one was obvious given the context.
Though even if you did disagree with me, once I peaced out you still felt the need to throw out insults. For the second time.
Bad form mate. Bad form.
-2
1
0
u/FlimFlamBingBang Sep 24 '24
… and when this academia house of cards falls, and there are cracks and pieces crumbling off already, the left will be bankrupt. There will be a reckoning. As a Physicist, I recognize that many in the hard sciences bite their tongues and only share their true thoughts with likeminded friends they wholly trust. I know, I briefly was one of them hiding my thoughts. I still hide my thoughts from all but the closest I trust because I traded one corrupt institution for another. Academia has gone nuts and will collapse, and will collapse first, and I will be happy in the days as it finally does. Maybe then, the other institutions will have a chance to course-correct.
-1
u/Low-Librarian-3944 Sep 24 '24
if the definition of Expert has changed from someone good at something to hypocritical idiots who are trying to indoctrinate the youth then Elons Right
1
84
u/MagnumBlowus Sep 24 '24
Imagine screeching about eating the rich and down with the bourgeoisie when your political party is heavily over-represented in all fields of science, Education, Hollywood, Mainstream Media, and Television. While tons of billion/million dollar corporations also brandish your talking points and pander to your agendas.
Democrats paint themselves as rebels against some sort of machine while ignoring all the blatant signs that they are feeding “the machine”