if you can read and understand this..
 

I will listen to all your political ideas and theories because then I will believe you have the Intelectual capacity to comprehend complex systems. and even though 90% of you will not, you still have the right to vote in America, have kids, feed your families, get laid and drink beer. worship or not worship and live a safe healthy life.:2 cents:



https://www.hoover.org/sites/default..._up dated.pdf

III. Conclusion

This paper reviews a provocative but well-supported hypothesis that Democratic presidents have overseen superior economic performance since at least Harry Truman. I confirmed the basic hypothesis using updated data from the same sources that also include the second Obama term. Section I explored whether Blinder-Watson’s hypothesis hinges on their use of a one-quarter lag in defining a presidential term. It does.

The high degree of variability of presidential growth rates relative to the lag timing throws significant doubts on the Blinder-Watson hypothesis. Without a better rationale, there seems little reason to trust a hypothesis that hinges on a coincidental use of a short lag that has no historical foundation, particularly when that lag coincidentally maximizes the D-R gap and the statistical significance of partisan identity as an explanatory variable.

A superior way of assessing the economic performance of a presidential administration might be to consider overlapping influence of current and former presidents during a term, an approach that was developed in Section II. Whether overlapping quarters or years, the results were different than when any discrete lagging of terms is utilized.

Future work on presidential economic performance is needed, but it should recognize that party identification is an elastic concept. Political writers often observe that a Republican (or Democrat) in the White House today would have been a Democrat (or Republican) three decades ago. Ronald Reagan advocated for greater levels of immigration and signed legislation that granted
Presidents - 17

amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants in 1986, a policy anathema to conservatives in recent years. Richard Nixon enacted wage and price controls, and famously went to China, both decidedly non-conservative positions. Liberal JFK cut income tax rates at all levels, the first president to do so since before the Great Depression, and tax-cutting (especially for the rich) is decidedly out of step with modern progressive ideology. These examples show that the inconsistent relationship between partisanship and ideology is a challenge that blurs the important question of how policy affects the economy

Brother grape, first of all this text is not dense or difficult. It is a straight forward analysis that, when viewed without a partisan lens, yields the following conclusion:

When measuring economic growth, employing a 1 quarter lag appears to favor democrat presidents; employing a 6 quarter lag appears to favor republican presidents. Or, to be blunt, statistics can be read any damn way by anyone.

The mish mash of "partisanship" aside, democrats and republicans each produce varying results based on luck and competency.

Mexican lemon imports prevent highway deaths

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-st...65540224-3.jpg

and I hate to do this to you but it is "intellectual" with 2 Ls

It's spelled Intellectual.

Lol, the classic ad hominem of hitting spelling instead of the argument :)

Yes, so you say, but if the crux of the post is an ut omnis attack against intellectual capacity and its application, to misspell the very word is at least somewhat relevant.

See also the rest of my post, wherein I don't mention that error but in fact discuss the fallacy of relying on correlations. I even provide a helpful illustration, which I'm sure you'll find amusing.

LOL. Opps.

http://www.rochardsbunnyranch.com/rock/smack.gif

no - i do not think it is intellectual - It is a simple matter of course that you have to sow the fruits you harvested BEFORE.

the current state of an economy always results from the past - just as the stock market prices can only shine if the results from the past have shone.

economic consequences are mostly consequences of many micro-economies that are slow to come to light and show their influence.

it is ABSOLUTELY impossible to preview a longterm result of a step taken today. all you can messure is hope - but hope has nothing to do with reality.

whenever we looked back in history - no matter if it was in politics or economy it always came different as expected because some liitle factor was not rethought deep enough.

Welcome to another installment of "Dunce Posts Shit Written by Someone Smarter".

I are rully smart. Can me post?

thanks Mark, spell check

is that like the pirates chart?

https://illuminutti.files.wordpress....ates.jpg?w=620

so basically you aren't going to say dumb shit about politics... awesome! :thumbsup

nope, just a reader and researcher... once in a while :thumbsup post away :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

so, in essence, you can lay off Trump then?

yikes lol!
https://media.giphy.com/media/PIF9rJf7kRZNS/giphy.gif

:1orglaugh

You're such an idiot :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

That is just so freaking funny...

I will continue to say only smart shit about politics - glad you're happy about that!

It's spelled oops.

:1orglaugh:thumbsup

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh


https://assets2.bigthink.com/system/...jpg?1365394372

You can’t reall see how Trump did until we are looking back. Obama did amazing with the economy but it had almost no choice but to rebound.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:thumbsup actually I need smart people around, just like everybody does

unfortunately, the obama economic advances seem to have been gov cash incentives and handouts. :( welcome being proved wrong

And the winner, by way of "showing the silliness of politically motivated statistical analysis of complex situations" knockout!


:1orglaugh:thumbsup




.

Corrected this for you.
"and I hate to do this to you but it is "intellectual" with 2 lbs"