My Survey of Economists

OK, so it's not MY survey. Interestingly enough, it was commissioned by Dilbert creator Scott Adams. He wanted to do an anonymous survey of respected economists to find out what they thought of the presidential candidates, experts who couldn't be grilled or ridiculed for their beliefs and opinions. So he hired a company to do it right, and a Wharton professor I respect seems to think it was done well enough to report on the NYTimes Freakonomics blog, so I feel pretty comfortable reporting what I feel are the salient details here on mine.

Economists think Obama's plans would be better for the economy than McCain's by a margin of 59 to 31 (with 10% thinking there wouldn't be a significant difference between the candidates). Now, if you only look at economists registered as independents, the numbers come a little closer. Which begs the question, do some of them think what they do because they're a member of the candidate's party, or are they a member of the party because they believe in the party's current economic policies and proposals (I have to think that economic policy is among the top issues for most economists)? Either way, Obama seems to have an advantage.

While they were at it, they asked the economists what the most important issues were, and who would do a better job on those issues. Not surprisingly, they were all pretty economics-related (which supports my above-mentioned theory): education, healthcare, energy policy, and trade. Obama won 3 out of 4 of these. McCain edged out his opponent on trade, but Obama wins on healthcare, education, and energy policy.

So there you have it, 59 out of 100 economists agree, Obama is clearly better for America than McCain.