JohnStOnge wrote:88, let me establish a premise. I've mentioned it many times before. Statistics transcends any particular discipline. If you understand statistics, you are qualified to evaluate the use of statistics in ANY discipline. You don't have to be an environmental scientist to critique the use of statistics in environmental science. You don't have to be a climate scientist to critique the use of statistics in climate science. So on and so forth. And you don't have to be an economist to critique the use of statistics in economics.
I couldn’t disagree more, and you are Exhibit A for proof of that fallacy. This isn't some lab experiment in a controlled environment where you can compare sample A to sample B and state with certainty..."Yep, no change. No difference".
“Understanding statistics” and understanding what DRIVES those statistics, or what’s BEHIND those statistics, or in what environment those statistics were achieved are two ENTIRELY different things. You have proven your inability to differentiate those scenarios beyond any reasonable doubt with your flailing on Trump’s economy. You act as thou the accomplishments of both Obama and Trump were achieved in some equivalent, equal vacuum, and that couldn’t be further from the truth, a fact which has been pointed out time and again to you and which you conveniently continue to ignore. You act as thou Trump getting numerous economic statistics to never-before-seen levels in my lifetime is just “a continuation of the trend”, and yet have NEVER answered the question of “if it’s so easy why hasn’t ANY OTHER PRESIDENT been able to accomplish it?”
The fact that you’re still dying on that hill and defending your position speaks volumes about the quality of work you must do in OTHER disciplines.