Liberals hate the poor!

[CrONoS]

2 things:

1- I don't believe that the effect of a presidency could appear immediately. I think there a lot of the effect of a presidency which will be measured into the next mandate. So, the measure of a republican mandate would capture a lot of the decision of the earliest mandate.

2- I would need confirmation but republican were in power during recession (Reagan (1981) - Bush (1990-1992) - Bush (2001)). And we can't blame republican to have caused these worldwide recession. And the fact that they were in recession, will surely affect the Gini & the GDP more than any other thing!

On these grounds I think his thesis is faulty.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jaguar
I read the article, and I'm questioning the obviously poor sample size. With so many factors not under a president's control, you can't state anything meaningful without a huge sample size.

This is like claiming that one guy is obviously better at scrabble than another because he won six out of ten games.

"Poor sample size"? So fifty years of economic growth data is a "poor sample"? So we have to wait 300 years to know, right?

It seems like a simple statement - in the past 50 years we have had 34 years of Republican Presidents and 26 of Democrats. To quote:

average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.

So explain what the "sample size" problem is.

And of course the main point of the article is that the issue is more stark for those at the bottom, while those at the top are generally the same off.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by GePap


Did you read this part of the article?

But statistical regularities, like facts, are stubborn things. You bet against them at your peril.

Yes, I did.

It is a statistical regularity that life expectancy has risen prodigiously while the wearing of powdered wigs has fallen dramatically in the past 250 years.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Guynemer


Yes, I did.

It is a statistical regularity that life expectancy has risen prodigiously while the wearing of powdered wigs has fallen dramatically in the past 250 years.

Is that the best dumb poor comparison you could make?

If the issue were trully beyond any policy control, then the growth rates should be more uniform - chance and all. They aren't. Maybe Republicans have gotten "all the bad luck", but then, if you notice a pattern that having a certain bunch in power leads down most of the time, what exactly is the "intelligence" in ignoring that?

[Patroklos]

Last time I noticed the US economy is a lot different in 1948 than it was in 1928, specially given the huge amounts of controls that came into effect.

No more different than the 1950s and 1990s.

Besides, your arguement is a bit shallow. Why 1920's and 1930's, but not 1940'? So its Okay to include economic growth in the 1920's but not the massive growth in the 1940's during the war? (which the author didn't?) And then of course, some of the steppest percentage declined occurred from 1929-1932, which would fall in the Hoover years.

Who suggested excluding the 40's? If they had, wouldn't the extrordinary circumstances of the 40's warrent exclusion using your own standard above of being non standard?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos
No more different than the 1950s and 1990s.

IN terms of policy actions the government could take, the economy is more similar in 1950 and 1990 than in 1950 and 1920. For example, the government established a mandatory minimum wage in 1938. So in 1930, no government could mandate a raise on all bottom wages. in 1950 and 1990 they could.

Who suggested excluding the 40's? If they had, wouldn't the extrordinary circumstances of the 40's warrent exclusion using your own standard above of being non standard?

OzzyK did, or at least he only tried to compare 1920's boom to 1930's collapse.

And the author began in 1948, which was after the wartime boom, and during or right after the recession of the late 40's.

[Patroklos]

IN terms of policy actions the government could take, the economy is more similar in 1950 and 1990 than in 1950 and 1920. For example, the government established a mandatory minimum wage in 1938. So in 1930, no government could mandate a raise on all bottom wages. in 1950 and 1990 they could.

More similar /= relevantly similar.

OzzyK did, or at least he only tried to compare 1920's boom to 1930's collapse.

He was pointing out you purposely excluding periods that debunk the trend for no academic reason.

And the author began in 1948, which was after the wartime boom, and during or right after the recession of the late 40's.

Why?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos
More similar /= relevantly similar.

Given that the comparison is being made of what happened when certain parties were in power, what powers those parties had to use to influence the economy is a very relevant point.

He was pointing out you purposely excluding periods that debunk the trend for no academic reason.

A 20 year period that saw the biggest swings in our modern economic history is less instructive than a 50 year period (which is what is being discussed in the article) in which we haven't had any economic meltdowns. After all, as Republicans keep trying to say, the slowdown during the W Presidency hasn't been that bad.

Why?

Why not? The man is comparing presidencies. Perhaps he sould have gone 1949 instead, the true beginning of Truman's second term, which still leaves out the war related issues of his first term.

[Patroklos]

Given that the comparison is being made of what happened when certain parties were in power, what powers those parties had to use to influence the economy is a very relevant point.

Do you honestly think the powers available to influence the economy in 1950 resemble those in 1990? For all intents and purposes 1950 is as different fron 1990 as it is from 1930.

A 20 year period that saw the biggest swings in our modern economic history is less instructive than a 50 year period (which is what is being discussed in the article) in which we haven't had any economic meltdowns. After all, as Republicans keep trying to say, the slowdown during the W Presidency hasn't been that bad.

Again, given the stated purpose of the article there is no reason to restict it 1948. Other than to exclude trend bucking data that is.

Why not? The man is comparing presidencies. Perhaps he sould have gone 1949 instead, the true beginning of Truman's second term, which still leaves out the war related issues of his first term.

Exactly, he has no good reason to pick the presidencies he did other than to restrict inconvienient data.

Not that that is the only problem here, as others have pointed out.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Yes, I did.

It is a statistical regularity that life expectancy has risen prodigiously while the wearing of powdered wigs has fallen dramatically in the past 250 years.

I shouldn't have invested all I had in the powdered wig market

Oh, FTR, I think you are correct. Correlation does not equal causation. There are just too much that isn't accounted for that it really doesn't make the findings worth much. That, and as said, I'd be interested to see the differences of growth during different party control of Congresses.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by GePap




Is that the best dumb poor comparison you could make?

The point is that there are too many other variables. If you don't control for the other variables, you can not, as a true scientist or statistician, draw any conclusions.

And, believe me, I want this to be true.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I shouldn't have invested all I had in the powdered wig market

I coulda told ya, man. You gotta run these things by me first.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Again, given the stated purpose of the article there is no reason to restict it 1948. Other than to exclude trend bucking data that is.
Exactly, he has no good reason to pick the presidencies he did other than to restrict inconvienient data.

1. Or perhaps, the man wants to use consistent data so that his comparison is valid. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the govenment did not keep the same statisctical data for the 1920's and 1930's as it did for periods after.

Making sure the data you work with is uniform, or measures the same things is vital.

2. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the man measures "average" growth. So, while the boom of the 20's is "left out,", so is the even more ridiculous boom from 1942 to 1945. And of course the steep economic delcine from 1929-1932 would all fall squarely on a Republican (Hoover's) administration.

How do you think that periods of -20% growth would affect the Republican side while periods of +20% growth would affect the Democratic side?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Guynemer


The point is that there are too many other variables. If you don't control for the other variables, you can not, as a true scientist or statistician, draw any conclusions.

And, believe me, I want this to be true.

Yes, there are a lot of variables changing all the time - which leads me to ask why would all these disparate variables all allign in certain ways during periods of Democratic rule and Republican rule and led to this steady statistical regularity?

again, if things are so outside the control of party, why should we get sucha clear distinction, for example, in growth rates at the very bottom, over a 50 year period?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap


So you still accept the statistical findings that Americans do better under Democrats in the past 50 years? And still want to pick the slower growth, right?

Did I say that?

Hmmmm. I would have to review a lot more economic data before i could say that.