Suppose that Clancy, an economist from a university in Arizona, and Eileen, an economist from a public television program, are arguing over saving incentives. The following dialogue shows an excerpt from their debate: Eileen: I think it's safe to say that, in general, the savings rate of households in today's economy is much lower than it really needs to be to sustain an improvement in living standards. Clancy: I think a switch from the income tax to a consumption tax would bring growth in living standards. Eileen: You really think households would change their saving behavior enough in response to this to make a difference? Because I don't. The disagreement between these economists is most likely due to . Despite their differences, with which proposition are two economists chosen at random most likely to agree? Lawyers make up an excessive percentage of elected officials. Tariffs and import quotas generally reduce economic welfare. Minimum wage laws do more to harm low-skilled workers than help them.

Economists will disagree with each other regarding the appropriate size of the government, the power of trade unions, the adverse effects of unemployment and inflation, the equitable distribution of income, and whether a policy of tax cut is desirable or not. When economists disagree due to differences in scientific judgments, they disagree about a factual matter: the type of tax policy that would lower the budget deficit. In contrast, disagreements due to the differences in values reflect differing assessments on fairness or equity.