What kind of economical thinker are you?

[Prime Junta]

I found a really good quiz that tests which school of economical thinking you belong to -- Austrian (libertarian), Chicago (monetarist), Keynesian/neoclassical, or Socialist. It was on a libertarian website, but was nevertheless remarkably fairly written. It takes some time and thought to answer, but IMO is well worth it.

Here's the quiz: [ http://www.mises.org/quiz.asp ].

There are 25 questions. FWIW, my answer breakdown was

A: 1
C: 8
K: 14
S: 0

That would make me a neoclassical/Keynesian with significant monetarist tendencies. That's rather further to the right than I would have expected.

(My single Austrian-school answer was about war, and IMHO that particular question was quite heavily stacked; in particular, I kiiinda doubt that most Keynesians would agree that wars generate prosperity...)

[Zaleukos]

A 4, C 17, K 4, S 0 which is roughly where I expected to end up. And I agree that the warfare question was more than a little stacked.

[Corwin]

Haven't got time to check it out right now, I will later. However, wars do generate prosperity; for the arms dealers, suppliers, eventual reconstruction teams, etc. It's only the people in the middle who suffer!! From memory, didn't Americans grow rich supplying both sides in certain conflicts?

[Arhu]

Haven't got the time to do the test yet, either, but the last point reminded me of something. And to bring some geekiness into the discussion -

From the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Ferengi_Rules_of_Acquisition) -
#34: War is good for business... only from a distance, the closer to the front lines, the less profitable it gets.

#35: Peace is good for business.

[mudsling3]

Wars are about consumption, like a wild fire...including human flesh, of course will stimulate economic. "sarcasm"

Correction Corwin!! Profiteers are the "international" bankers... Got time for a little story? and watch at your own risk :) Please stick with it for 10mins before... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261&q=alex+jones&total=8909&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

[Prime Junta]

Haven't got time to check it out right now, I will later. However, wars do generate prosperity; for the arms dealers, suppliers, eventual reconstruction teams, etc. It's only the people in the middle who suffer!! From memory, didn't Americans grow rich supplying both sides in certain conflicts?

The question is whether they generate more prosperity than they destroy. I don't think anyone is disputing the existence of war profiteers; however, I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find anyone claiming that war increases prosperity overall. Supplying both sides in a war is very lucrative, but there's also a considerable risk of getting caught in the middle of it -- or punished by the winner afterwards.

[JemyM]

Money is just a tool.

[dteowner]

Wow. That's a serious quiz. I'll have to take that when I get home and have time to put ye olde thinking cap on.

[Prime Junta]

I (re-)took the shorter, 10-question version of the quiz (presumably concentrated on the more central points of economic thought). I came out more Keynesian in this one -- 8 Keynes (or historical), 2 Chicago, 0 Austrian. If you don't have the patience for the long version, try the shorter one: [ http://www.mises.org/quiz.asp?QuizID=5 ]

[magerette]

Good Godfrey Daniels!! I can't believe the complexity those "answers" crammed into a few sentences. My results can only be interesting from the standpoint of someone completely formally unexposed to the doctrines of any of these schools, but for whatever they may be worth, they came out 5 Chicago/historical, 2 Keynesian, 2 Austrian, and 1 socialist.

[Prime Junta]

Good Godfrey Daniels!! I can't believe the complexity those "answers" crammed into a few sentences. My results can only be interesting from the standpoint of someone completely formally unexposed to the doctrines of any of these schools, but for whatever they may be worth, they came out 5 Chicago/historical, 2 Keynesian, 2 Austrian, and 1 socialist.

LOL! I think we can safely chalk you up as "confused." :D

(I'm curious: do you remember which one was your "socialist" answer?)

[Zaleukos]

The question is whether they generate more prosperity than they destroy. I don't think anyone is disputing the existence of war profiteers; however, I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find anyone claiming that war increases prosperity overall. Supplying both sides in a war is very lucrative, but there's also a considerable risk of getting caught in the middle of it -- or punished by the winner afterwards.

The only way I could make sense out of the "keynesian" answer to that question was as a reference to the US in WW2, but to build a general model on that rather exceptional situation seems quite dumb.

[magerette]

LOL! I think we can safely chalk you up as "confused." :D

(I'm curious: do you remember which one was your "socialist" answer?)

Most definitely confused. :) I had one historical answer btw #2--which I evidently placed in the wrong camp. Fortunately I've already scored a copy of Krugman's recommended work ( along with 2 Karen Armstrong titles) in an online book sale, so help is on the way.
The socialist answer was to question #9:

9. Do markets create and sustain monopolies and what should be done about it?

A. If the history of capitalism shows us anything, it is that it leads to business concentration. With fewer and fewer firms dictating the terms, the result is ever higher prices combined with ever lower wages. Unions and antitrust enforcement have had some measure of success in curbing this, but neither institution goes far enough to counter the trend toward monopoly within market settings. We must also question the idea that competition itself should be a policy goal. Most often, it is socially wasteful and a slogan repeated by monopolists to justify exploitative behavior. The ideal of cooperation between all, a truly democratic economy, should be the ideal. "

[Eliaures]

Whew...shows I must be bored. :)

Keynes...13

Social...... 9

Austrian...1

Chicago... 2

I guess this makes me a neoclassical/Keynesian Socialist. I suppose I'm not going to be approached by Ron Paul's campaign team anytime soon.

[Prime Junta]

Most definitely confused. :) I had one historical answer btw #2--which I evidently placed in the wrong camp. Fortunately I've already scored a copy of Krugman's recommended work ( along with 2 Karen Armstrong titles) in an online book sale, so help is on the way.
The socialist answer was to question #9:

Cool, I hope you'll enjoy them as much as I did. -- Yup, that socialist answer is one of the fairly few that makes some kind of sense. I thought the phrasing with them was pretty tendentious -- Marxist theory has made some pretty important insights into the workings of the capitalist economy, and if they had stated them in less obviously Bolshevik phraseology, the test would have been fairer IMO.

[Prime Junta]

I guess this makes me a neoclassical/Keynesian Socialist. I suppose I'm not going to be approached by Ron Paul's campaign team anytime soon.

Yay, we have a Bernsteinian in the house! Now, all we need is a revolutionary Socialist, and the spectrum will be complete (I'm pretty sure mudsling would come down heavily on the Austrian side, without even having to take the test).

[VPeric]

Hmm. It's probably just me, but I've had some difficulties answering the questions. Namely, I fail to see the difference between some answers. For example, in the 2nd question (I'm taking the short quiz), I agree (more or less) with all answers except B (we should calculate GDP and unemployment and go from there). I suppose if I spent more time thinking/knew more about economics, I'd be able to see the subtle differences. <shrug>

Anyway, results (short test):
Chicago: 2 (questions 3 and 7)
Austrian: 8 (everything else)

So, what does that make me? :P

[Prime Junta]

A Ron Paul supporter, if Ron Paul was running in Serbia.