Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: 13 Feb 2000, 11:18 am

Post 29 Nov 2016, 9:52 pm

freeman3 wrote:The main study covered in the article covered the period from 1947-2013. So Democratic presidents were just lucky in a given 66 year period? Look at the growth rates charted on pages 38-39 of the study. It cannot just be shrugged off. It's almost impossible to argue that Republican presidents are good for the economy given this information.

https://www.princeton.edu/~mwatson/pape ... ov2013.pdf


I can't argue with the numbers or methodology, as I'm not qualified; and they do appear convincing, however contradictory it seems. However, Freeman, "luck" is pretty much what the authors of that study actually concluded. They could not find any systematic, partisan policy or predictive explanations. They went on to declare:
Democrats would no doubt like to attribute the large D-R growth gap to better
macroeconomic policies, but the data do not support such a claim. Fiscal policy reactions seem
close to “even” across the two parties, and monetary policy is, if anything, more pro-growth
when a Republican is president—even though Federal Reserve chairmen appointed by
Democrats outperform Federal Reserve chairmen appointed by Republicans.
It seems we must look instead to several variables that are mostly “good luck.” p32f
.

If anything, it may be the coincidence of external events that play into this, along with an admittedly more optimistic feeling the electorate may have under a Democratic president, creating, in effect, a self-fulfilling prophecy. The chart on page 37 of the report shows, for example, that Reagan and Bill Clinton had similar first- and second-year GDP growth, even though they went about it in opposite ways.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 30 Nov 2016, 7:06 am

Freeman, your "Democrats are better for economic growth" argument has some serious flaws in it. Look where the growth in the country is. Overwhelmingly in Red states while the blue states flounder. Yes, overall the country has done better as a whole but you are taking short snap shots during a particular presidency (while the policies trickle into the next presidency) while the long term trend is in favor of Republicans in a pretty resounding way!
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 30 Nov 2016, 7:32 am

Economic policies that promote less income stratification not only are fairer, not only lessen social tension, not only makes society a better place but in fact are better for economic growth. That's the lesson. The professors could not examine those kinds of factors. Economic policies that promote income stratification lessens consumer demand and that curtails growth in Rroublican administrations. As Henry Ford could tell you if workers can't buy the product, you can't sell it. This article discusses some other possible factors but I think income stratification leading to lower consumer demand is the main one.
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/04/11_econ ... n_can_win/

As for "luck" being the explanation (I would note that their luck gap only explained half of the difference and better consumer expectations--part of the luck the researchers cited--is probably due to the fact that workers do better under Democrats so that's not luck) the researchers only said about 50 percent was due to luck and the rest of the difference their study does not explain. So plenty of room for my explanation to be valid. Also, there is a coach at UCLA--Jim Mora--who I think should be fired. I have my opinions about whether he should be fired. But football is a complex sport and maybe I don't have the capability to know what is causing our inability to win. And there are injuries. But after 5 years I think luck balances itself out. After 66 years even more so...With regard to complex things like economic growth that are hard to break down into causal factors looking at things over a long period of time and just seeing which set of economic policies do better is the best way to to look at it. Luck and random factors cancel themselves out over a long period of time.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 30 Nov 2016, 7:55 am

GMTom wrote:"Which is a legal action protected by law. "
and I said it was legal, I complained that it was stupid and made the Democrats look like cry babies and sore losers.

Thing is, Trump has now alleged that there were millions of illegal votes. So surely there must be an audit to check. It seems that some states have not actually counted provisional ballots - surely the whole point of them is to check for validity and count those that pass, as they may make a difference to the outcome. Otherwise, why bother to take them, just turn the voter away so their uncounted votes are more obvious.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 30 Nov 2016, 7:56 am

GMTom wrote:Freeman, your "Democrats are better for economic growth" argument has some serious flaws in it. Look where the growth in the country is. Overwhelmingly in Red states while the blue states flounder. Yes, overall the country has done better as a whole but you are taking short snap shots during a particular presidency (while the policies trickle into the next presidency) while the long term trend is in favor of Republicans in a pretty resounding way!

Can you supply data? I had heard that California is growing, while Texas is stagnating.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 30 Nov 2016, 8:23 am

I am not going to bother looking up what we here in the states already know.
First off, I am talking about a long term growth pattern over several decades, second, no doubt you can find some outlier examples but the overall growth has been to Red states over these many decades.
Texas has grown tremendously over the past several decades, if it's slow NOW, it doesn't really change much now does it?

Also, Democrats tax and spend policies will help the economy short term. The way we keep flip flopping from Dem to Rep to Dem to Rep party and taking snap shots at that particular moment is not fair, policies of the previous administration leak into the next parties run. Tax and spend Democrats will get an immediate lift but over time it catches up, Hillary kept making pointing to this example yet the studies she pointed to took particular care to mention the Presidency had nothing to do with this and most of the reasons were simply luck.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 30 Nov 2016, 11:02 am

"I am not going to bother looking up what we in the states already know." :smile: :smile: :smile:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/com ... g_2017bZ0H
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/gdp/states/

I could not find long-term growth rates by state but if GDP is higher (overall and per capita) in blue states that kind of says something, doesn't it?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 30 Nov 2016, 11:58 am

what kind of chart is that? It explains absolutely nothing.
California has a real high GDP per person yet the cost of living there is sky high. DC is the absolute highest GDP per person and is very Democratic Blue, do you think this is reflective? That city has some of the worst poor conditions in the country. If this is your example, then you failed miserably in your attempt to prove anything.

Trying to link rural states like Red Wyoming to Urban Blue states like California is also a bit of a joke.
Your numbers suit you but don't make any sense in comparing.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Nov 2016, 3:03 pm

freeman3 wrote:The main study covered in the article covered the period from 1947-2013. So Democratic presidents were just lucky in a given 66 year period? Look at the growth rates charted on pages 38-39 of the study. It cannot just be shrugged off. It's almost impossible to argue that Republican presidents are good for the economy given this information.

https://www.princeton.edu/~mwatson/pape ... ov2013.pdf


Oh, mercy nurse.

Say what you'd like. It's really immaterial. If you want to live in a make-believe world where the economy booms in times of high regulation and high taxation, go right ahead.

Businesses love regulations, right? (and please, no straw man responses).

The facts are these: the only GOP Presidents during those periods: Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and two Bushes. The first three were hardly conservatives.

But, make whatever conclusions you like. You probably think Obama has been "good" for the economy. I'm saying Trump will make him look like a fool in one year. That's all it will take.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Nov 2016, 3:07 pm

freeman3 wrote:"I am not going to bother looking up what we in the states already know." :smile: :smile: :smile:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/com ... g_2017bZ0H
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/gdp/states/

I could not find long-term growth rates by state but if GDP is higher (overall and per capita) in blue states that kind of says something, doesn't it?


Voters are choosing Red, over and over again. Why is that?

Maybe it's because they don't want the kind of idiocy California has foisted upon itself. You let felons roam the street and punish law-abiding citizens. You can't even go to the grocery store and get your purchases bagged for free. You have the highest gas prices in the country (or way up there). You have virtually no mental health facilities, but are throwing billions at a boondoggle called "high-speed rail." California is a great place to live if you are a left-wing ideologue who makes a decent salary.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 30 Nov 2016, 4:29 pm

"California is a great place to live if you are a left-wing ideologue who makes a decent salary."

hmm...I wonder who he is talking about...

As bad as we are running our state, which state has the highest projected GDP growth in fiscal 2017? California. 2016? California. 2015? California. And California was 6th and 8th for 2013 and 2014. The state is being run into the ground. Maybe we should consult Mississippi....
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 30 Nov 2016, 10:16 pm

Perhaps a good indicator would be GDP minus expenditures, to see the most solvent.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 30 Nov 2016, 10:42 pm

California would be easily be #1 under that measurement. Not even close.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 01 Dec 2016, 7:28 am

freeman3 wrote:California would be easily be #1 under that measurement. Not even close.


Huh.

California was 17th in GDP per capita.

Weird. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... per_capita

Now, in terms of solvency: https://www.mercatus.org/statefiscalrankings

California is 44th.

Meanwhile:

http://www.newyorker.com/business/curre ... eback-myth

http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/art ... 812264.php

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/26/californ ... -dims.html
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 01 Dec 2016, 7:30 am

freeman3 wrote:California would be easily be #1 under that measurement. Not even close.


It's #1 in #1!

San Francisco’s chief judge says he and his colleagues discarded 66,000 arrest warrants issued over five years for quality-of-life crimes, like sleeping on the sidewalk, because it made no sense to lock people up for fines they couldn’t afford.
The crimes, which also include urinating on sidewalks and being drunk in public, are infractions punishable only by fines. But when those who were cited failed to show up in court, judges in the past have issued bench warrants ordering them to appear, with a sentence of five days in jail for failing to show up.
But San Francisco Superior Court judges stopped issuing the warrants a year ago and recently disposed of about 66,000 bench warrants issued since January 2011. The city’s police union and some members of the public have protested, but Presiding Judge John Stewart defended the court’s action Tuesday in a meeting with The Chronicle’s editorial board.
“You’re putting somebody in jail because they’re poor and can’t pay a fine,” he said. “We got a lot of criticism, but we thought it was the right thing to do.”


As has been often said, all of San Francisco is a urinal.