That’s quite the excluded middle there.
Did I say anything about abolishing property rights? The point is that they’re not a matter of “natural law” or anything, they’re purely a matter of social consensus, which varies enormously from one society to the next and from one historical period to another. E.g., there is no scientific test, as distinct from a legal test, by which one could determine whether this here Rolex, that you were wearing a moment ago, is thine or mine. (It’s objectively and eternally mine now, of course, but you know what I mean.)
“Correlation does not prove causation,” has become a favored cliche of those who prefer to disregard facts that conflict with what they want to believe.
Not only is there more economic growth under Democrat presidents, but there is certainly more job creation.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
Is this correlation a coincidence? No I do not think so. I think it is causation.
Now that I’ve been accused of excluding the middle, perhaps you could point to it. How long may I own my Rolex? At what point can you decide it’s not mine any more?
Would you like my land now? Or would you like to wait until my crops are ready for harvest? Or is that too much trouble for you, would you rather just take what you want after I’ve harvested it?
That was awesome, you should put that in your signature line.
He’s kinda got a point, though. Correlation doesn’t necessarily prove causation, but it generally implies it to varying degrees.
A progressive tax system is fair to a point. But after that point it serves no purpose other than to punish the wealthy. I could provide for 8-18 people according to your math, but why should I and more than some billionare should provide for me?
Or be their attorney.
In this day and age, what constitutes a “crime” (actual theft and fraud notwithstanding) is often the wranglings of lawyers and politicans trying to redistribute wealth in their own interests. I still believe Sorbanes Oxley just ended up being a jobs program for accountants, lawyers and consultants.
But yeah, I think most people aquire wealth without commiting amoral or criminal acts.
Yes, god forbid you are actually ruled by someone who has real world experience and has actually built something of significance from nothing.
Your belief in that fairy tale is reason enough for it to be a bad idea. I have seen little to indicate that people who come from wealth care for little more than preserving their wealth, distancing themselves from the masses and keeping themselves amused.
I’m not making any assertions about the causal relationship between the executive’s party and the state of the economy one way or the other. I don’t see that **NDD **has provided sufficient evidence for his assertion. That is all.
I’d be more interested in seeing, at the very least, how the economy did when the legislative branch and the executive branch were held by the same party vs when they were held by opposite parties (all combinations). Then there’s the delayed effect since any new administration or Congress isn’t going to change policies right away.
Further, **NDD **makes the claim that Democrats raise taxes on the rich and Republicans lower them on the rich. How many times did that actually happen? He’s just saying he thinks it might happen sometimes.
And then you have the problem of the assumption that a given political party being in power (in one branch of the government) is a first order effect on the economy while everything else is a second order effect. If you’re not assuming that, then you’ll need to control for other first order effects.
And that’s just the stuff I can think of off the top of my head. This “research” wouldn’t make it past the starting gate for a peer reviewed article on the subject.
Well, as long as it implies it that’s good enough for me. Would you like to buy a rock that keeps polar bears away? I don’t know how it works, but ever since I put it under my bed there haven’t been any polar bears.
Whenever a conservative spouts the propter hoc fallacy, they invariably believe that correlation excludes causation.
What about when I do it?
Obviously correlation does not exclude causation. Nor does not imply causation.
Odd that you seem to be okay with liberals using correlation to imply causation, why is that?
The notion that correlation is a useless data point seems to be unique to conservatives. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
I was merely pointing out the exclusive relevance of laws and social conventions in determining property rights. Having done so, I am not obliged to invent any laws or conventions. But, if you insist, it does seem Balzac would be a good place to start.
How did you manage to twist this into a left/right issue?
Correlation does not imply causation, it’s just that simple.
Correlation is not a data point. It can be a hint that there is causation, it can be a reason for further study. But that’s about it.
But don’t let that stop you from painting everything as liberal vs conservative. It seems this time statistics have a conservative bias. How are you not embarrassed by this?
No one is saying it’s useless, in general. It is a necessary, but not sufficient condition, in general. In this particular instance there are many reasons why it is insufficient, some of which I stated explicitly, above.
In this case it’s certainly enough to make one want to dig deeper. But that’s just it. No deeper digging has been done. Not to mention the fact that the best and proper tax rate for any income bracket is something that will almost certainly vary over time, depending on external conditions. Raising taxes might be right one year and wrong another year.
This is a complex subject being treated like a school bake sale.
But if you think you’ve got an economic discovery, I invite you to try and get it published. I’d recommend a pier reviewed journal, though, not a peer reviewed one.
Of course correlation doesn’t imply causation when it comes to the economy performing better under one party or the other. I’m more interested in how specific policies enacted under either party affected the economy.
Thank you for doing a great job voicing exactly what I was thinking.
This annoys me greatly for two reasons. First, I’ve probably posted on this subject a dozen or more times here. I’m quite sure that John Mace has to have seen these posts in the past. These posts have illustrated that even lagging the data relative to the terms of office, the data indicate greater performance under Democrats, yet he speculates whether or not this might be the case above.
Secondly, suddenly the standard for argument here is publication in a peer-reviewed journal? Bullshit. John Mace, if you ever propose anything other than a coincident relationship between anything ever here on the SDMB at any point in the future, I will demand that you have published in a peer reviewed journal and recall this post here for you.
Did everybody have a simultaneous brain-fart? Of course, correlation implies causality, what it doesn’t do is prove causality. Usually, your first clue to causality is a correlation, you look for correlations, catch a hint. If you were to say correlation suggests causality, you aren’t saying anything that demands proof, nor requires it.
Well, there’s pretty good evidence that the economy during Democratic administrations outperforms the economy during Republican ones. The data is striking and IIRC statistically significant [1]. This applies to GDP growth, unemployment and changes in the Gini coefficient: even the stock market during Democratic administrations outperforms Republican ones. Cite.
The question is why? Krugman is supposedly some big ultra-liberal but he has noted that it’s hard to find a convincing reason that the effect would be this strong. I think it’s a combination of a sociological sense of carte blanche among CEOs during Republican administrations, combined with consistent but qualitatively varying negative policy shocks – or policy foot-dragging-- when Republicans rule the Executive branch. But these explanations are sheer conjecture. The puzzle remains.
[1] Statistical significance: that’s not in the link. It comes from my memory of a secondary reference to Bartels.