Liberals hate the poor!

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by GePap


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?

Gepap:

I made a point earlier, about the fact that the last three republican mandate were made during a recession. The two first recessions were worldwide (1981 & 1991) while the 2001 one was probably mainly in USA and caused by the wake of 911.

I'm pretty sure that you can't blame republican for these recessions. And had a huge effect on the correlation stats.

Usually in social science, you will have a time lapses of several years when you try to see the correlation between the two variable. Since you'll suppose that the effect is not immediate.

Right now I'm working on a paper which seek the correlation between the liberality of divorce law in 1961 and the outcome of divorce in 1967-1968. Since the effect will never be immediate.

Really; this study seems to be really amateurish, which is surprising since the guy should have a PHD.

Edit: I'll read the text again, since I supposed that I am wrong somewhere.

[GePap]

Originally posted by CrONoS


Gepap:

I made a point earlier, about the fact that the last three republican mandate were made during a recession. The two first recessions were worldwide (1981 & 1991) while the 2001 one was probably mainly in USA and caused by the wake of 911.

1. The 2001 recession was NOT cause by 9/11, as the economic contraciton began before it.

2. Reagan got into power for blaming the bad economy of the late 70's, and that poor economic performance would be counted against Carter's presidency, not Reagan's.

3. The 1991 recession occurred all during a Republican period of power, so what is wrong about noting this?

I'm pretty sure that you can't blame republican for these recessions.

Why not, if they happen under their watch? More importantly, why is it that in the last 50 years more recessions would happen under Republicans? Even if Republican Presidents have no direct blame, it seems quite risky to go with them - they seem to have terrible luck.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by GePap

3. The 1991 recession occurred all during a Republican period of power, so what is wrong about noting this?

They were worldwide, they are not caused by the republicans. Canada got hit REALLY hard in 1981 and 1990-1992. The average income took 7 years to go back at his 1992 level(when you adjust income with inflation)

I'm pretty sure that you can't blame republican for these recessions.

Why not, if they happen under their watch? More importantly, why is it that in the last 50 years more recessions would happen under Republicans? Even if Republican Presidents have no direct blame, it seems quite risky to go with them - they seem to have terrible luck. [/QUOTE]
I don't know why, maybe there is sociological reasons, american people tend to vote republican when they are in times of difficulty or when the future doesn't look bright. I DON'T KNOW.

But what I do know is the statistics in this paper are not good, and would never be accepted in a peer review.

[CrONoS]

I would be curious to see the results if you take the variation of the canadian GDP and GINI, and measure it along with the american party in power if you would have the same results....

[GePap]

Originally posted by CrONoS
But what I do know is the statistics in this paper are not good, and would never be accepted in a peer review.

These statistics are from a book I can only asume you have never read, so what basis you would have to claim that they would not pass peer review, given that you most likely have never reviewed them?

All this article does is publicize the findings, and the article was not writen by the book's author.

[GePap]

Originally posted by CrONoS


They were worldwide, they are not caused by the republicans. Canada got hit REALLY hard in 1981 and 1990-1992. The average income took 7 years to go back at his 1992 level(when you adjust income with inflation)

Given how big the US economy is to the worldwide economy, these two things do not cancel each other out. Have you any proof that the world-wide economic contractions of those periods did not begin in the US?

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by GePap


1. The 2001 recession was NOT cause by 9/11, as the economic contraciton began before it.

Yup, it started in 2000, before Bush was even president.


50 years of data (actually, the study has 60 years but you suck at addition) isn't nearly a suitable sample size. There are what, six or seven total distinct economic periods there? Furthermore, how much do you think presidents are affected by what happened in the term of their predecessor? Most economic policies have a pretty strong delay in how long it takes them to actually have any effect. For example, FDR's economy sucked for about eight years at the beginning of his term. His fault?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Good thing they didn't extend their analysis to the bust years under Roosevelt in the 30's and boom years under Republicans in the 20's. That'd ruin their well crafted conclusion.

So now, the Great Depression is Roosevelt's fault??

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jaguar

50 years of data (actually, the study has 60 years but you suck at addition) isn't nearly a suitable sample size. There are what, six or seven total distinct economic periods there? Furthermore, how much do you think presidents are affected by what happened in the term of their predecessor? Most economic policies have a pretty strong delay in how long it takes them to actually have any effect. For example, FDR's economy sucked for about eight years at the beginning of his term. His fault?

The issue is not whether the economy "sucked" but family income growth rates. Yes, FDR inhereted a terrible economy, but then of course, that only meant it could go one way, UP, which would mean that the country saw economic growth during the totality of FDR's term and families saw a rise, trying to return to the 1929 levels, though it took a lot of time to get there.

Also, if you can say we have had multiple different economic periods, why should this statistical regularity hold? Even in the article it's author notes a change in the issue pre and post 1980's.

More important, and the biggest point of the article is noting the different income growth rates for different income areas - after all, the article points out that growth to the 95th Percentile has been generally very close under whomever, but at the 20th Percentile there has been a HUGE differences, differences that policies such as the minimum wage or ones attitude towards organized labor would affect.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


So now, the Great Depression is Roosevelt's fault??

Under an analysis such as this one, the poor years until about 1940 would have been credited as being his fault. Perhaps this should lead you to consider whether presidents should be evaluated by economic growth rates.

Oh, and GePap, if you're talking about the income inequality principle - yep, that's totally D/R related. No doubt about that. If the poor want to vote their pocketbooks, they should vote Democrat.

The country's overall economic performance, though, is probably 95%+ things that have nothing to do with the President. (The previous president, Congress, oil supply overseas, terrorism, the Fed, technological innovation, etc)

[Dauphin]

I think the state of the economy probably has more effect on what people vote, than the effect of what the people vote has on the economy.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Dauphin
I think the state of the economy probably has more effect on what people vote, than the effect of what the people vote has on the economy.

Absolutely. It's all about appearances, as in 'who appears to be offering me more money/more success/etc.', not actuality, and doesn't have nearly the effect on reality as we think it will.