- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump is a genius. Setting the demand for a national lockdown ... during the census count
Posted on 4/3/20 at 11:22 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Posted on 4/3/20 at 11:22 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:I generally agree, but it's nearly impossible to determine the correct "alignment". Agree?
While this is an entertaining “gotcha”, I don’t really think it is fair to correlate economic growth with who is in office, mainly because economic policy can sometimes take years to actually alter behavior.
0
Posted on 4/3/20 at 11:56 pm to arcalades
quote:As I asked, do you have data to back your claims?
that's bc Congress is usually controlled by republicans
quote:
bullshite. you're straight making that up.
If it doesn't fit your worldview, it must be fake eh? Chart of GDP growth, all-Rep vs. all-Dem vs. Divided and the data behind the chart.
If you want to cross-check that data, here is a list of party control of the House by year and GDP growth by year.
And since I was replying to RobbBobb, who specifically said that the economy does better when Repubs control the House, I made my own spreadsheet to see the difference just based on control of the House. Since 1930, the difference is 4.19% vs 1.41% in favor of Dem control of the House. If we exclude the exceptionally bad depression years when Repubs had control AND exclude the exceptionally good years afterwards when Dems had control, and start at 1940, the advantage is still 3.97% vs. 2.7% in favor of Dem control of the house. Further, if we exclude the WW2 years of more exceptional growth, the Dems still have the advantage at 2.96% vs. 2.7%.
I had to cherry-pick the absolute worst starting year for the Dems, and still GDP growth is better when Dems control the House. Would you like to select an arbitrary number of lag years for me to re-run the data to attribute the growth to the congress you'd like? I'm sure we can massage the data in some way to make it align with your reality.
quote:Since 1930 (and until 2013), the presidency, house, and senate were all Dem controlled for 35 years. Repubs held all 3 for 8 of those years, and 41 years control was split. The absolute highest GDP growth during the 8 years of absolute Repub control was 4.7%, whereas the average growth under absolute Dem control 5.2%. Further, that best Repub year of 4.7%... it immediately followed 4 straight years of absolute Dem control where the average of those 4 years was higher than 4.7%. And the following year, again with total Repub control, GDP growth was negative.
how many years do you thin the demoncrats have held the presidency, house, and senate?
I strongly encourage you, and all of you, to look at the data. See if you can find a pattern that makes Repubs look good. Presidency, House, Senate, or any combination. Because I'm trying really hard, and I can't do it. How many years of lag do you think it takes for the economy to respond to policy? 2? 5? 10?
If you'd like, I can write a program to test every amount of lag to determine the alignment that best favors Republican economic policy. Interested?
Posted on 4/4/20 at 12:26 am to Korkstand
quote:I would personally advise against using control of the house in the 20th century as some useful proxy.
Korkstand
Dems had control of the house for all but 4 years between 1931-1994. Any economic fluctuations between then would have been under a dem house.
But the bigger point is this. There were A LOT of house dems in that huge 1931-1994 timespan that were conservative on every issue, but were democrats for longstanding regional/cultural reasons.
The dems in the 20th century were a huge mix of often competing camps that frankly had very little in common with each other.
There were many dems in that time that gladly voted for the reagan tax cuts, for example.
Also, just because a certain party controls congress/oval office doesn't mean new policies are being enacted.
A more relevant way to look at this would be to compare economic growth before and after individual historic policy changes.
This post was edited on 4/4/20 at 12:29 am
Posted on 4/4/20 at 1:05 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:RobbBobb's idea, not mine.
I would personally advise against using control of the house in the 20th century as some useful proxy.
quote:And here we go. Look, I consider you to be one of the more rational posters here, yet still you are here molding data to fit your beliefs. Just how many of those Dems over the decades do you think were DINO's? Keep in mind that for about a fifth of those years the Dems held a supermajority, and another fifth they held a 100 seat advantage. Really there were only 10 years out of 60 where the numbers were even remotely close to favoring Repubs. Do you mean to tell me that about a third of Dems over a period of 6 decades voted conservatively on economic policy?
But the bigger point is this. There were A LOT of house dems in that huge 1931-1994 timespan that were conservative on every issue, but were democrats for longstanding regional/cultural reasons.
quote:And yet, such an arrangement still performed better than total Repub control.
The dems in the 20th century were a huge mix of often competing camps that frankly had very little in common with each other.
quote:Well sure.
Also, just because a certain party controls congress/oval office doesn't mean new policies are being enacted.
quote:Perfect. Can you link me to or compile a list of what you deem to be "historic" changes?
A more relevant way to look at this would be to compare economic growth before and after individual historic policy changes.
Posted on 4/4/20 at 1:17 am to Korkstand
quote:
Do you mean to tell me that about a third of Dems over a period of 6 decades voted conservatively on economic policy?
Considering it was under a dem house that reagan got his tax cuts through and jfk got his tax cuts through, there must have been a decent portion of dems in those decades who were at least partially right wing on various economic issues.
My overall point is that despite dems dominating the house for basically the entire last half of the 20th century, our economic policy from 1960-1990s was actually somewhat right-leaning. taxes were reduced and government spending as a percent of gdp declined.
It is a fairly meaningless statement to say "gdp performed better with party x than party y", when polar opposite policies were being enacted under party x in different decades.
Posted on 4/4/20 at 1:19 am to Korkstand
Dems controlled every single congressional seat below the mason dixon line for much of the 20th century. These were conservative democrats.
Probably close to 25-30% of house dems in my estimation.
Probably close to 25-30% of house dems in my estimation.
Posted on 4/4/20 at 2:29 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:Or, you know, maybe Dems aren't as tax-crazy as you guys believe? Neither in the 20th century nor today. Were you particularly impacted by Obama's tax policies? I didn't notice, and the data bears that out. In fact, through all the decades of varying tax rates and policy, not much has changed. Federal tax revenues from income taxes have held at a very steady percentage of total personal income. Total tax revenues hold a pretty steady percentage of GDP. From the 60s on through the decades, through Reagan, Clinton, the Bush's, Obama, Trump... very little has changed as far as how much the average person pays in federal taxes.
Considering it was under a dem house that reagan got his tax cuts through and jfk got his tax cuts through, there must have been a decent portion of dems in those decades who were at least partially right wing on various economic issues.
My overall point is that despite dems dominating the house for basically the entire last half of the 20th century, our economic policy from 1960-1990s was actually somewhat right-leaning.
quote:Eh. You sure?
government spending as a percent of gdp declined.
quote:So far I believe you have only mentioned tax policies, which I suppose does summarize the entirety of conservative economic policy, eh? Lower taxes = better economy, right?
It is a fairly meaningless statement to say "gdp performed better with party x than party y", when polar opposite policies were being enacted under party x in different decades.
Problem is, no one can, or has bothered to, provide evidence that this is true. Do you have any? Based on data I've seen, there is essentially zero correlation between tax rates and GDP, unemployment, median wages, job growth, the stock market, or any other measure of economic health that you like to look at. Can you prove this statement wrong? I will be collecting and analyzing data as I have time.
Posted on 4/4/20 at 2:34 am to RobbBobb
God you fricking people are hopelessly stupid
Posted on 4/4/20 at 2:52 am to Korkstand
quote:
Problem is, no one can, or has bothered to, provide evidence that this is true. Do you have any? Based on data I've seen, there is essentially zero correlation between tax rates and GDP, unemployment, median wages, job growth, the stock market, or any other measure of economic health that you like to look at. Can you prove this statement wrong? I will be collecting and analyzing data as I have time.
Economists generally believe that income taxes discourage production. Economies have so many variables (high causal density), which makes regression analysis very difficult to analysis the effect of policy, but it is very likely the case that at sufficiently high income tax rates, there starts to be noticeable deadweight losses in the economy
There is a reason some economists refer to the 70s and the 80s as the “marginal revolution”. Virtually every nation in western Europe and the United States reduced their marginal income tax rates because policy makers were noticing the high rates at the top were reducing growth.
It also makes intuitive sense that tax rates can be too high. The issue is we don’t know what that rate is.
Posted on 4/4/20 at 3:11 am to Korkstand
quote:
Based on data I've seen, there is essentially zero correlation between tax rates and GDP, unemployment, median wages, job growth, the stock market, or any other measure of economic health that you like to look at. Can you prove this statement wrong? I will be collecting and analyzing data as I have time.
This is NOT how one would go about studying the effect of taxes on the economy, because it ignores an innumerable amount of other variables.
If you increase taxes in one year, and then over the next 365 days the edit grows faster than it did before the tax increase, that doesn’t mean the tax increases didn’t affect growth, because it’s entirely possible that the economy would have grown even faster if not for the tax increase.
If you are a pizza chef who has 2 ovens, then destroys one but buys two more, would you logically conclude that destroying an oven increases pizza production? Nope. The issue is that the oven being destroyed doesn’t show up in the data because the 2 other ovens mask the effect of destroying the one oven
Posted on 4/4/20 at 5:43 am to Korkstand
quote:
RobbBobb's idea, not mine.
Oh my word, did you really go to all that trouble because you missed the point? Did you really go all the way back in time to democrats that dropped an atomic bomb, and compare them to today?
WOW! Here, I'll type slowly:
We very recently saw the Republican Senate put together a stimulus package to aid Americans forced out of the labor market. What did the DIM controlled House do in response?
P O R K E D up the bill, right up until she got Trumps surging poll numbers. But she still got things like $25 million for art centers.
So if the new census results in a Rep controlled House, guess what happens? Less pork, less deficit, less expensive non essential diversity and inclusion worthlessness. For a decade. In these times.
Now go shred that spreadsheet, dude. That was a pitiful exercise in pointlessness, and has absolutely proves nothing in regards to future redistricting, based on the current philosophical makeup and actions by DIM Socialists (pending Communists)
Posted on 4/4/20 at 11:55 am to RobbBobb
quote:So I take it you still have no evidence?
Oh my word, did you really go to all that trouble because you missed the point?
quote:Quite a slanted view on the way this went down.
We very recently saw the Republican Senate put together a stimulus package to aid Americans forced out of the labor market. What did the DIM controlled House do in response?
P O R K E D up the bill, right up until she got Trumps surging poll numbers. But she still got things like $25 million for art centers.
quote:Again, do you have ANY evidence that republican economic policy is actually beneficial? Because so far, you're just basing this on your feelings. And I know how much the right hates making policy based on feelings.
So if the new census results in a Rep controlled House, guess what happens? Less pork, less deficit, less expensive non essential diversity and inclusion worthlessness. For a decade. In these times.
quote:
Now go shred that spreadsheet, dude. That was a pitiful exercise in pointlessness, and has absolutely proves nothing in regards to future redistricting, based on the current philosophical makeup and actions by DIM Socialists (pending Communists)
Posted on 4/4/20 at 11:57 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Economists generally believe that income taxes discourage production. Economies have so many variables (high causal density), which makes regression analysis very difficult to analysis the effect of policy, but it is very likely the case that at sufficiently high income tax rates, there starts to be noticeable deadweight losses in the economy
quote:Exactly, and the "optimal" rate depends on all the other variables you mentioned. In other words, cutting taxes is not some silver bullet.
It also makes intuitive sense that tax rates can be too high. The issue is we don’t know what that rate is.
Posted on 4/4/20 at 12:16 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
P O R K E D up the bill, right up until she got Trumps surging poll numbers. But she still got things like $25 million for art centers.
Yep , and Republicans were pussies for going along with it.
Posted on 4/4/20 at 12:28 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:I totally agree. It is an extremely complex topic, which is why it is so baffling that conservatives seem to think that cutting taxes and spending is always what the economy needs.
This is NOT how one would go about studying the effect of taxes on the economy, because it ignores an innumerable amount of other variables.
And it is extremely amusing to me the logical gymnastics that are performed in order to make sense of things from a conservative view. Any and all evidence that is contrary to the conservative worldview is just whisked away. Just a taste:
Historically, the economy performs better when Dems control most of government. Conservative rebuttal: those dems were actually conservatives. Hm ok, but over the same period, Repub controlled economies performed worse. Conservative rebuttal: well it takes time for policies to work. Ok, how long? Because there is no lag period that can be applied to make the positives align with conservative policies. Conservative rebuttal: well that's because the economy is influenced by many factors. Yeah no shite, so why the focus on cutting taxes and the assumption that conservative policies are economically better if no correlation can be found? Conservative rebuttal: You're dumb.
I don't know why I even try to have a rational discussion.
Posted on 4/4/20 at 12:30 pm to RobbBobb
The census has been going on for a long time. I did mine online a month ago. It was easy. Except one thing. 'White' meant you were asked ethnicity. But they didn't say how far back. I went with 4 grandparents and said 'French, Spanish, Jew'. But it they wanted me to back 300 years (and I have those records) it would take a lot digging into my files.
Posted on 4/4/20 at 12:32 pm to Korkstand
quote:
I don't know why I even try to have a rational discussion.
I guess you are saying Republicans are almost as dumb as Democrats are.
Democrats actually think a government run healthcare system and open borders are a good thing.
You can't fix stupid.
Posted on 4/4/20 at 12:34 pm to lil 7thward
quote:
He knows a lot about Seoul
He knows "more about Seoul than anybody. Nobody knows more about Seoul than me". Then add "very strongly fantastic incredible" than you'll have it correct.
Posted on 4/4/20 at 12:35 pm to Korkstand
I disagree with the notion that democratic policies are better for the economy than conservative policies, if that is what you are trying to say.
It’s entirely possible that in those years where dems were in power and the economy was good, it would have been even better if different policies were enacted.
It’s entirely possible that in those years where dems were in power and the economy was good, it would have been even better if different policies were enacted.
Posted on 4/4/20 at 12:35 pm to RobbBobb
Your post is considerably shallow/ you saying Trump killed 7,000 and counting Americans for the Census?
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News