Which Party is Better for the Economy?

[JohnStOnge]

Did you not note my statement about not being able to say there is cause and effect?

But there is correlation. Your statement about "no way to correlate" is not correct. What you need to go with is not "there is no correlation." You need to go with "correlation is not necessarily causation."

What I'm talking about is this: The correlation is such that, overall, the economy has been better when Democrats have been President. That's the experience. So why is it that, with that experience, more in the population think Republicans are better at the economy?

Dude, correlation without causation is absolutely worthless, and even worse, can lead people, like yourself, to draw conclusions that have no basis in the data. If you're not going to acknowledge that the underlying data does not support your conclusions, why would you even make those conclusions in the first place? I am worried about you, you wouldn't have made such a crass and unsupported conclusion before Trump got elected. TDS is real.

I am very much aware of the fact that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. And I did not make any cause an effect statement. What I said is that people have, on balance, experienced better results over time when Democrats have been President. And I wondered why, given that, more people than not believe Republicans are better on the economy.

If it's "bad" to think Democrats are better for the economy because the economy has tended to do better when Democrats are on charge, how "bad" is it to think Republicans are better for the economy when the economy has tended to do WORSE when Republicans are in charge?

And BTW, we do make decisions all the time based on correlation when we have to. Like for instance we have decided that cigarette smoking increases the risk of lung cancer based on correlation because it wouldn't be ethical and/or possible to conduct controlled experiments. But, if you have a child, are you going to be unconcerned if they smoke cigarettes?

[SDHornet]

@ JSO going all NPC in yet another thread.

[AZGrizFan]

Dude, correlation without causation is absolutely worthless, and even worse, can lead people, like yourself, to draw conclusions that have no basis in the data. If you're not going to acknowledge that the underlying data does not support your conclusions, why would you even make those conclusions in the first place? I am worried about you, you wouldn't have made such a crass and unsupported conclusion before Trump got elected. TDS is real.

I am very much aware of the fact that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. And I did not make any cause an effect statement. What I said is that people have, on balance, experienced better results over time when Democrats have been President. And I wondered why, given that, more people than not believe Republicans are better on the economy.

If it's "bad" to think Democrats are better for the economy because the economy has tended to do better when Democrats are on charge, how "bad" is it to think Republicans are better for the economy when the economy has tended to do WORSE when Republicans are in charge?

And BTW, we do make decisions all the time based on correlation when we have to. Like for instance we have decided that cigarette smoking increases the risk of lung cancer based on correlation because it wouldn't be ethical and/or possible to conduct controlled experiments. But, if you have a child, are you going to be unconcerned if they smoke cigarettes?

Lag time.

[JohnStOnge]

I am very much aware of the fact that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. And I did not make any cause an effect statement. What I said is that people have, on balance, experienced better results over time when Democrats have been President. And I wondered why, given that, more people than not believe Republicans are better on the economy.

If it's "bad" to think Democrats are better for the economy because the economy has tended to do better when Democrats are on charge, how "bad" is it to think Republicans are better for the economy when the economy has tended to do WORSE when Republicans are in charge?

And BTW, we do make decisions all the time based on correlation when we have to. Like for instance we have decided that cigarette smoking increases the risk of lung cancer based on correlation because it wouldn't be ethical and/or possible to conduct controlled experiments. But, if you have a child, are you going to be unconcerned if they smoke cigarettes?

Lag time.

It's kind of hard to argue "lag time" with respect to the Great Depression. The Great Depression started in 1929 and Republicans controlled the Presidency from 1921 through 1933. Same thing with the Great Recession thing at the end of the G.W. Bush Administration. Just how much lag time do you want to allow?

[GannonFan]

Lag time.

It's kind of hard to argue "lag time" with respect to the Great Depression. The Great Depression started in 1929 and Republicans controlled the Presidency from 1921 through 1933. Same thing with the Great Recession thing at the end of the G.W. Bush Administration. Just how much lag time do you want to allow?

Again, if you're just going to casually look at the who was in the White House before or during the time an economic retraction happened, then of course you're going to find simple answers. Simple questions and simple analysis leads to simple answers. I would assume you would have a more reasoned approach to this, but apparently you've become simple at the same time you've switched parties and political philosophy. Even the Great Depression is much more complex than "Republicans were in the White House up until the time it happened", and many things had nothing to do with executive power in Washington. Does the President have control over economic policies of other countries in the world? Other countries returning to the gold standard at pre-WW1 prices was not something the President, no matter what party they were, had a lot of control over. Fraud and legal issues concerning the London stock exchange are normally not of the purvey of the American President, but were certainly things that roiled the foreign market. Just saying, these things tend to be somewhat complex.

[Ibanez]

Lag time.

It's kind of hard to argue "lag time" with respect to the Great Depression. The Great Depression started in 1929 and Republicans controlled the Presidency from 1921 through 1933. Same thing with the Great Recession thing at the end of the G.W. Bush Administration. Just how much lag time do you want to allow?

What about the 19th Century? The good ole days, when the Democratic Party was favored in the rural south and had a “small government” platform and the Republican Party was favored in the cities of the north and had a “big government” platform.

My have times have changed. Fourth Party Republicans/Democrats don't look like the 5th or 6th Party Republicans and Democrats. They sure don't look like the 7th Party (modern day) politicians.

My point is you can't just look at who is in the White House.

[Ibanez]

It's kind of hard to argue "lag time" with respect to the Great Depression. The Great Depression started in 1929 and Republicans controlled the Presidency from 1921 through 1933. Same thing with the Great Recession thing at the end of the G.W. Bush Administration. Just how much lag time do you want to allow?

Again, if you're just going to casually look at the who was in the White House before or during the time an economic retraction happened, then of course you're going to find simple answers. Simple questions and simple analysis leads to simple answers. I would assume you would have a more reasoned approach to this, but apparently you've become simple at the same time you've switched parties and political philosophy. Even the Great Depression is much more complex than "Republicans were in the White House up until the time it happened", and many things had nothing to do with executive power in Washington. Does the President have control over economic policies of other countries in the world? Other countries returning to the gold standard at pre-WW1 prices was not something the President, no matter what party they were, had a lot of control over. Fraud and legal issues concerning the London stock exchange are normally not of the purvey of the American President, but were certainly things that roiled the foreign market. Just saying, these things tend to be somewhat complex.

Not to mention the Republican Party, which loved free trade in the early 20th Century, probably felt the heat by the civil unrest, economic instability and general chaos in many European countries following WW1.


It's much more complex than what party was in the Oval Office.

[JohnStOnge]

It's kind of hard to argue "lag time" with respect to the Great Depression. The Great Depression started in 1929 and Republicans controlled the Presidency from 1921 through 1933. Same thing with the Great Recession thing at the end of the G.W. Bush Administration. Just how much lag time do you want to allow?

Again, if you're just going to casually look at the who was in the White House before or during the time an economic retraction happened, then of course you're going to find simple answers. Simple questions and simple analysis leads to simple answers. I would assume you would have a more reasoned approach to this, but apparently you've become simple at the same time you've switched parties and political philosophy. Even the Great Depression is much more complex than "Republicans were in the White House up until the time it happened", and many things had nothing to do with executive power in Washington. Does the President have control over economic policies of other countries in the world? Other countries returning to the gold standard at pre-WW1 prices was not something the President, no matter what party they were, had a lot of control over. Fraud and legal issues concerning the London stock exchange are normally not of the purvey of the American President, but were certainly things that roiled the foreign market. Just saying, these things tend to be somewhat complex.

I explicitly noted in my initial post to start this thread that one cannot infer cause and effect. I'm talking about people experiencing things. And it's not just who is President. I also linked a recount of what's happened in the context of who was President and who controlled Congress. There is just NO way people have experienced things being better economically, over time, when Republicans have been in control or in a relatively strong position.

I've argued many times in the past over many years on various message boards that the President does not control what happens with the economy. At the same time, I think it's reasonable to say that people tend to respond as though he does. If the economy is doing well a President's approval rating tends to do better. If it's not doing well it tends to do worse. I know Trump doesn't have a high approval rating. But what do you think it'd be if we were having serious problems with the economy right now?

So why is it that, when most of that bad things economically have happened when a Republican is in the White House, do we have a plurality saying the Republicans are better on the economy?

I actually do already think I have an answer: It's because the economy is OK right now and the Republicans are in control.

[GannonFan]

Again, if you're just going to casually look at the who was in the White House before or during the time an economic retraction happened, then of course you're going to find simple answers. Simple questions and simple analysis leads to simple answers. I would assume you would have a more reasoned approach to this, but apparently you've become simple at the same time you've switched parties and political philosophy. Even the Great Depression is much more complex than "Republicans were in the White House up until the time it happened", and many things had nothing to do with executive power in Washington. Does the President have control over economic policies of other countries in the world? Other countries returning to the gold standard at pre-WW1 prices was not something the President, no matter what party they were, had a lot of control over. Fraud and legal issues concerning the London stock exchange are normally not of the purvey of the American President, but were certainly things that roiled the foreign market. Just saying, these things tend to be somewhat complex.

I explicitly noted in my initial post to start this thread that one cannot infer cause and effect. I'm talking about people experiencing things. And it's not just who is President. I also linked a recount of what's happened in the context of who was President and who controlled Congress. There is just NO way people have experienced things being better economically, over time, when Republicans have been in control or in a relatively strong position.

I've argued many times in the past over many years on various message boards that the President does not control what happens with the economy. At the same time, I think it's reasonable to say that people tend to respond as though he does. If the economy is doing well a President's approval rating tends to do better. If it's not doing well it tends to do worse. I know Trump doesn't have a high approval rating. But what do you think it'd be if we were having serious problems with the economy right now?

So why is it that, when most of that bad things economically have happened when a Republican is in the White House, do we have a plurality saying the Republicans are better on the economy?

I actually do already think I have an answer: It's because the economy is OK right now and the Republicans are in control.

You start off with the truth, and then you spend the next four paragraphs trying to say why the truth is wrong, because you know it is. SMFH.

[AZGrizFan]

Lag time.

It's kind of hard to argue "lag time" with respect to the Great Depression. The Great Depression started in 1929 and Republicans controlled the Presidency from 1921 through 1933. Same thing with the Great Recession thing at the end of the G.W. Bush Administration. Just how much lag time do you want to allow?

Fine then.

Bad luck?

[UNI88]

It's kind of hard to argue "lag time" with respect to the Great Depression. The Great Depression started in 1929 and Republicans controlled the Presidency from 1921 through 1933. Same thing with the Great Recession thing at the end of the G.W. Bush Administration. Just how much lag time do you want to allow?

Fine then.

Bad luck?

Timing and economic cycles?

[CID1990]

Fine then.

Bad luck?

Timing and economic cycles?

Russians.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

Timing and economic cycles?

Russians.

Business cycle?

[SeattleGriz]

Russians.

Business cycle?

Monkey business cycle.

[AZGrizFan]

Business cycle?

Monkey business cycle.

Monkey see monkey do?

[CAA Flagship]

Monkey business cycle.

Monkey see monkey do?

Monkey on a unicycle.

[JohnStOnge]

Fine then.

Bad luck?

Possibly. But I'm just considering human nature. If every time you eat a peach you develop a horrible rash then have trouble breathing while every time you eat an apple you're fine you're probably going to feel better about eating apples than you do about eating peaches. It's your experience.

[AZGrizFan]

Fine then.

Bad luck?

Possibly. But I'm just considering human nature. If every time you eat a peach you develop a horrible rash then have trouble breathing while every time you eat an apple you're fine you're probably going to feel better about eating apples than you do about eating peaches. It's your experience.

Why you gotta bring Adam and Eve into this? They didn’t do nuttin’...

[kalm]

Fiscal conservatives....

U.S. Budget Deficit Swells to $898 Billion, Topping Forecast
By Andrew Mayeda
September 13, 2018, 11:00 AM PDT
Deficit in first 11 months of FY rises by a third vs year ago
Federal spending rose by 7%, outpacing revenue gains of 1%

The U.S. budget deficit widened to $898 billion in the 11 months through August, exceeding the Congressional Budget Office’s forecast for the first full fiscal year under the Trump presidency.

The budget deficit rose by a third in the October to August period from $674 billion in the same timeframe a year earlier, the Treasury Department said in a statement on Thursday. Spending rose by 7 percent to $3.88 trillion, outpacing revenue gains of 1 percent to $2.99 trillion. Revenue from corporations fell to $163 billion, down by $71 billion from a year ago.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... QJthjro1cQ

[CID1990]

Fiscal conservatives....

U.S. Budget Deficit Swells to $898 Billion, Topping Forecast
By Andrew Mayeda
September 13, 2018, 11:00 AM PDT
Deficit in first 11 months of FY rises by a third vs year ago
Federal spending rose by 7%, outpacing revenue gains of 1%

The U.S. budget deficit widened to $898 billion in the 11 months through August, exceeding the Congressional Budget Office’s forecast for the first full fiscal year under the Trump presidency.

The budget deficit rose by a third in the October to August period from $674 billion in the same timeframe a year earlier, the Treasury Department said in a statement on Thursday. Spending rose by 7 percent to $3.88 trillion, outpacing revenue gains of 1 percent to $2.99 trillion. Revenue from corporations fell to $163 billion, down by $71 billion from a year ago.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... QJthjro1cQ

They aren't fiscal conservatives

In other "we all care about fiscal conservativism" news, Libertarians still garner a whopping 5% of the vote at best where they are on ballots


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

Fiscal conservatives....

U.S. Budget Deficit Swells to $898 Billion, Topping Forecast
By Andrew Mayeda
September 13, 2018, 11:00 AM PDT
Deficit in first 11 months of FY rises by a third vs year ago
Federal spending rose by 7%, outpacing revenue gains of 1%

The U.S. budget deficit widened to $898 billion in the 11 months through August, exceeding the Congressional Budget Office’s forecast for the first full fiscal year under the Trump presidency.

The budget deficit rose by a third in the October to August period from $674 billion in the same timeframe a year earlier, the Treasury Department said in a statement on Thursday. Spending rose by 7 percent to $3.88 trillion, outpacing revenue gains of 1 percent to $2.99 trillion. Revenue from corporations fell to $163 billion, down by $71 billion from a year ago.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... QJthjro1cQ

hey, they operate under the "you gotta spend money to make money" theory....

Or was it "we may make a lot of money, but we spend a lot of money too!" theory....