Economic growth

[Amazon 7]

jgoose71

***>This has already been debunked as a load of Horse shit many times over. This
>article provides no correlation. All it says is "A democrat was in office, the economy
>grew."

You didn't read the article, did you.

Yes I did. The article is crap, the source article is crap, and they conveniently left out the democratically controlled 30's. What of it?

Are you going to now tell me how dividing the country is a good thing and quote "Rules for Radicals" as your source?

You are conveniently ignoring who was in power and the policies that led to the meltdown that took us into the 1930's... Ignorance of history is what is took us into the 2nd largest meltdown under the Brush Cutter in Chief.

[kelpdiver 2]

jgoose71

******
This has already been debunked as a load of Horse shit many times over. This article provides no correlation. All it says is "A democrat was in office, the economy grew."

A lack of correlation doesn't make the observation horseshit. Inconvenient for one party, sure.


Ya, it kind of does. Without correlation or facts to back up the article it places it squarely in the unsubstantiated opinion column.

Seems like you'd need facts to declare something as horseshit rather than declare it unproven.

The figures are absolute fact. You're challenging the significance of them, which again is not the same as "horseshit." Which again is a reflection that the figures look bad for you and cause an emotional response rather than a reasoned one.

[jgoose71 0]

billvon

>Yes I did. he article is crap, the source article is crap

So the whole thing is crap. Interesting. Some article highlights:

"Constitutionally, the American president just doesn’t have that much control over the economy." - so you believe that's crap, and the president DOES have a lot of control over the economy.

"But the partisan difference there was small and not necessarily in Democrats’ favor, with some Republican policies stabilizing the economy more." - so you believe that's crap, and that Democratic policies stabilize the government more.

"These “luck” factors account for only about half the 1.8 percentage point observed gap" - so you believe that's crap. It's not just luck.

"The remaining explanation, Blinder and Watson write unequivocally, is a mystery." - so you believe that's crap, and it isn't a mystery as to why the economy does better under democratic presidents.

Interesting. Didn't realize you thought so little of Republican fiscal policies, or that the president had so much control over the economy.

Not going to go point for point, but let me summarize....

This article is partisan. It's trying to break down who is better for the economy and is written for dumb people.

Both Democrats and Republicans have done good and bad things for the economy. Articles that try to generalize the parties without getting into specific issues like "How Dodd-Frank affected the economy" just continue on with the stereo types.

And when your article includes such phrases as "luck factor" and "The remaining explanation, Blinder and Watson write unequivocally, is a mystery." it kind of shows you don't know what you are talking about.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 3,130]

>Not going to go point for point . . .

Ah, so you didn't read it.

>This article is partisan.

The article makes it clear that although the facts show that the economy does better under democratic presidents, there is no evidence that democratic presidents cause the improvement.

Do you disagree with that? If so, what part?

[jgoose71 0]

billvon

The article makes it clear that although the facts show that the economy does better under democratic presidents, there is no evidence that democratic presidents cause the improvement.

Do you disagree with that? If so, what part?

This statement is a great reason why I classify this article as bullshit. You realize that this is double-talk right?

In the whole of itself is says nothing, therefore go ahead and keep electing Democrats. That is the whole article.

I got nothing from it and felt dumber after reading it.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[SkyDekker 1,465]

You didn't read the article.

[billvon 3,130]

>In the whole of itself is says nothing, therefore go ahead and keep electing
>Democrats. That is the whole article.

No, it says that there is a correlation but that does not imply causation - and much of the causation was luck, not any good fiscal policy decisions.

>This statement is a great reason why I classify this article as bullshit. You
>realize that this is double-talk right?

Dude, just admit you didn't read the article and you won't have to post so much inane, meaningless bullshit.

[jgoose71 0]

Double-Talk, noun

1: language that appears to be earnest and meaningful but in fact is a mixture of sense and nonsense

2: inflated, involved, and often deliberately ambiguous language

Synonyms

bafflegab, doublespeak, gobbledygook (also gobbledegook), rigmarole (also rigamarole), song and dance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XHCM7t1fkc

I've read the article. If you can't see it for what it is, I can't help you.

If you bought into this article and think that the economy runs on luck, you are in over your head.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 3,130]

>I've read the article. If you can't see it for what it is, I can't help you.

The article states that the economy historically does better under democratic presidents than under republican presidents. Do you disagree?

The article states that there is no visible _causal_ connection between those two, and that at least half of the effect is due to events outside the control of presidents. Do you disagree?

>If you bought into this article and think that the economy runs on luck, you are
>in over your head.

And if you think the economy is completely deterministic and non-random - whatever you do, do NOT invest in the stock market. You'll end up as one of those sob stories, people who invest their life savings in investments which, on paper, are sure things - only to realize that the real world does not always obey the rules.